Last Wednesday, the Coast Guard halted three years of conflict between Rhode Island legislators and a natural gas company that wanted to build a liquefied natural gas terminal on Rhode Island waterways.
In 2003, Weaver's Cove Energy proposed building an LNG terminal in Fall River, Mass., on the Taunton River about 20 miles from Providence. Rhode Island legislators, including U.S. Sens. Jack Reed, D-R.I., and Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., have opposed building the LNG terminal because, they said, transporting volatile natural gas could put Rhode Island residents at risk. In order for the company to build the terminal, both the building site and the waterway used for transport must be approved.
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission evaluates the building site of the terminal, and the Coast Guard assesses water navigability, said Capt. Roy Nash, Coast Guard captain of the Port of Southeastern New England. The FERC had approved the Fall River site for the terminal in 2005, but the Coast Guard deemed last week that the waterway was not navigable by the large ships required for LNG transport.
The river is not designed to be maneuvered by the large ships Weaver's Cove needs to use, Nash said. The river varies in width and depth, and existing infrastructure near the river makes transport difficult.
The Old Brightman Street Bridge and the New Brightman Street Bridge, parallel drawbridges 1,100 feet apart, would also inhibit transport up the river, Nash said. The initial plan in constructing the new bridge was to replace the old bridge, but legislation passed in 2005 prevents the destruction of the old bridge using federal money, a key step taken by legislators to halt the LNG plan.
Transporting ships carrying LNG past the USS Massachusetts - a retired battleship that draws over 90,000 visitors each year near the waterway near Fall River - would also prove a safety concern, Nash said.
In addition to maneuvering safely by the infrastructure near the channel, factors such as wind, tide and current make the transport of LNG a delicate operation that could likely not be undertaken safely at the rate the company proposes - 120 to 130 ships annually. "If you have complex maneuvers that require a lot of human judgment, you have to consider the possibility of human error," Nash said.
"The captain's decision lacks the necessary factual basis" said Jim Grasso, public affairs and political relations representative for Weaver's Cover Energy. For example, he explained that harbor pilots, who physically navigate the ships up the river, have been working with simulations to review whether they can make the necessary maneuvers in this case.
Grasso said, based on what he read in the report, that the Coast Guard did not consult harbor pilots in making the decision. "It's a skewed report," he said, adding that the company had not yet finished reviewing the report.
Weaver's Cove Energy intends to appeal the decision. "I think the legislators feel that they have won the battle, but they have not," Grasso said. Weaver's Cove plans to cooperate with all agencies involved to keep the project alive, he said.
State legislators have expressed concerns with the danger an LNG terminal in a densely populated area would pose. "I think it is unfair to an industry that has a 60-year exemplary safety record," Grasso said.
Reed and Whitehouse have lobbied against the construction of LNG terminals in densely populated areas. "The Coast Guard made the right decision. From a public safety and environmental standpoint, the Weaver's Cove LNG project posed too many risks and would have placed a tremendous burden on local law enforcement and taxpayers," Reed said in a statement.
Attorney General Patrick Lynch '87 has also fought against LNG terminals in urban areas for the past three years. "We cannot allow our bays and rivers to serve as superhighways for the transportation of a volatile gas in densely populated areas unless serious public safety and environmental concerns are addressed and remedied," Lynch said in a statement in 2004, when the Weaver's Cove proposal first surfaced. Lynch appealed the FERC's approval of the Fall River building site, but the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit last week rejected the appeal.
"I think it's a very good decision," said Donald Pryor, visiting lecturer at the Center for Environmental Studies. "The need for natural gas is likely to be met without this terminal," he said.
Pryor said other LNG terminals have been built offshore near Massachusetts and will likely be sufficient to meet the growing energy demand.
In 2005, a similar proposal by KeySpan to expand an LNG facility in Providence was rejected by the FERC, partly due to the risks associated with tankers navigating Narragansett Bay, The Herald reported in 2005. The Providence facility would have also required ships to move up the bay through many of the same waters as the Weaver's Cove terminal.
Despite the strong legislative opposition to the LNG industry, Grasso said he was optimistic about the future. "We firmly believe this will be a successful venture," Grasso said.
