Bringing Oil and Gas to Maine

Maine is pursuing a high-risk, low-reward energy investment strategy. With no fossil fuel deposits, Maine faces increasing costs to import oil and gas. Several projects reflect our  desperation to continue to burn fossil fuel. Our challenge is to help the public and policy makers understand how our current strategy is endangering and impoverishing Maine.

The proposed “megatank” for liquid petroleum gas in Searsport is an example of a high-risk, low-reward energy project here in Maine. Randall Parr, a member of the Maine Green Independent Party’s steering committee, recently published an op-ed in the Bangor Daily News, “Alerting the public to potential danger in Searsport.” He describes the dangers inherent in this project:

Propane gas, which burns at temperatures greater than 3,000 degrees, could liquify Mack Point tanks holding 55 million gallons of gasoline, kerosene and heating fuels whose total energy could equal 122 atomic bombs. Vapor explosions could propel flaming fuels high into the sky and land up to 50 miles away, ignite wildfires and cover water with flaming fuels if propane firestorms melt these tanks. […]

An atomic bomb destroyed everything within one mile of Hiroshima, Japan. The proposed Searsport liquid propane megatank would have about 34 times this energy.

Another example of a high-risk, low-reward project is the proposed east-west highway across Maine. Along with the truck traffic, many observers predict that a pipeline to bring oil from Canada will be an essential piece of the project. Without the additional revenue from an oil pipeline, it is difficult to understand the value of building a private toll road next to an existing railroad across the northern part of Maine.

Pipelines to deliver Canadian oil to international markets are a major element of Canada’s economic development plan. As the global economy recovers, the demand for oil and gas increases in Europe and Asia. Large deposits of tar sands oil in the middle of Canada are now economically feasible to develop. While the Keystone XL pipeline drew tens of thousands of protesters to Washington, DC, this weekend, the underlying economic pressures to export Canadian oil will be hard for policy makers to resist. Several proposed pipelines cross through Maine; we can expect increasing pressure to accept oil pipelines across our state in exchange for limited jobs and economic returns.

Beyond propane and petroleum, Our Governor has also announced his plans to “fast track” natural gas infrastructure. According to Robert Long of the Bangor Daily News (see “How LePage plans to fast-track natural-gas expansion“):

Efforts to expand access to natural gas in Maine continue on multiple fronts. Two firms, Summit Natural Gas of Maine and Maine Natural Gas, are competing to lay a natural gas delivery pipeline in the Kennebec Valley. The Dead River Co. and a Boston firm recently began trucking compressed natural gas to commercial customers who are not served by a pipeline. Major energy consumers, including hospitals and paper mills, have converted to natural gas as their primary energy source.

LePage wants to support and broaden those efforts.

The problem with every energy “solution” that imports more fossil fuel into Maine is that it takes investment away from a better strategy: developing our own clean, renewable energy sources. While natural gas prices are predicted to remain stable through 2040, those predictions are notoriously untrustworthy. Oil was supposed to be $35 per barrel for the foreseeable future; it’s now been near $100 per barrel for several years.

The decision to bet on a fossil fuel future is risky and a poor use of Maine’s limited finances for public infrastructure. As Greens are doing in the case of the Searsport megatank, it’s time to alert the public to the potential danger inherent in Maine’s current energy strategy.