Local politicians and environmental advocacy groups are speaking out against the possible upgrade of a liquid natural gas facility at Field's Point, in Providence. The upgrade would maintain the facility's current 600,000-barrel capacity and improve the site's access to Narragansett Bay to allow deliveries from tankers.
Critics object to the plant's potentially negative environmental impacts and say the plant may compromise the safety of surrounding communities.
KeySpan Corp., the company that has owned the Field's Point terminal since 2002, has been planning to expand the facility since April 2004 and is currently awaiting approval from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, said KeySpan spokeswoman Carmen Fields.
Specifically, Fields said the plan would involve rebuilding the dock connecting the facility to Narragansett Bay so it can accept LNG deliveries from tankers, increasing the amount of gas distributed through the terminal. She said the structure's current capacity - about 25 million gallons - would be maintained.
The FERC released a draft Environmental Impact Statement at the end of 2004 approving the plans for further review, which is now underway. KeySpan has to wait for the final EIS, which addresses possible environmental impacts, and then wait for approval before it can begin modifying the site. The report is based on the economic viability and environmental impacts of the development.
The final EIS is being put together after a period of public response held in December and January, during which time residents were able to voice their concerns about the project.
Local politicians, concerned with the site's security, are opposing the development proposal almost universally. Gov. Don Carcieri '65, Mayor David Cicilline '83, and U.S. Sens. Jack Reed and Lincoln Chafee '75 have all voiced their criticism of the project.
Reed refuses to support the facility's development because the FERC report does not include the Coast Guard's analysis of potential security dangers, according to his press secretary, Greg McCarthy.
"The coast guard has to do an evaluation process that takes into account the potential dangers of LNG to a site," McCarthy said. He also said that despite the fact "the senator had urged FERC to work with the Coast Guard on these concerns about safety," the FERC report was still being conducted without consideration of the Coast Guard's recommendations for security.
In his Dec. 1 response to KeySpan's draft EIS, Carcieri said the statement "does not appear to resolve legitimate concerns regarding the safety and security of such a facility." Like Reed, who issued a letter voicing his stance on the development proposal Jan. 31, Carcieri's main concern is the safety of the community surrounding the LNG terminal.
"While I favor the concept of increasing our supplies of liquefied natural gas," Carcieri said in his press release, "I cannot support a proposal that could threaten the well-being of Rhode Island residents or the health of Narragansett Bay."
In response to the concern for public safety and the facility's security, Fields noted the facility has been in place for 30 years, and has never experienced any problems with security, safety or spills. She added that allowing tankers to fill the terminal would require fewer trips than the current practice, which is to use trucks to haul in LNG - it would take one tanker to offload as much LNG as 200 trucks.
At the same time, according to the Providence Journal, increasing the volume of LNG moved through the facility would also demand about 50 tanker trips a year, or 100 annual voyages through Narragansett Bay.
Other concerns, such as those voiced by local advocacy group Save The Bay, are based on the development's possible environmental impacts. A statement from Save The Bay to Carcieri read, "The Providence River channel is a narrow and congested waterway, and the presence of LNG tankers and their security entourage would interfere with other commercial and recreational uses of the Bay."
To a number of publicly voiced environmental concerns, Fields said natural gas "is so environmentally friendly, it doesn't foul the atmosphere and it is so much more versatile than other fossil fuels. ... Burning it is less of a health hazard because it's not an irritant, and that's why you see it in municipalities, public schools," among other places. "It's a public heath advantage as well," she said.
But natural gas, while it burns cleaner than coal or oil, still pollutes the atmosphere and poses a threat to public health, said Marissa Molinar '07, an Environmental Studies concentrator. Molinar said that in addition to posing direct problems as air pollution and public health hazards, natural gas and the carbon dioxide it produces are greenhouse gases.
Fields also said KeySpan is happy with the "environmental benefits" of their plan, namely that "our group will not require more dredging" of the waterway. She said the groups concerned about environmental damage are "pleased about that."
Additionally, Fields said the site upgrade would be part of an effort to make the Northeast - and Providence in particular - a more significant center for natural gas supply, to give the region a stronger economic energy advantage, decreasing the amount of natural gas distributed from Canada and the Gulf of Mexico.
Said Fields, "We feel it is so important to helping better the position New England as a regional supply hub, because as it is, we're at the end of all the supply lines," and "that's in part why energy costs here are so high. ... We think it will help soften the sharp price hikes that we've witnessed in this region."
