Presentation to the Bahamian Forum on LNG British Colonial 6 pm - PDF document

Presentation to the Bahamian Forum on LNG British Colonial 6 pm July 5, 2005 Revised August 8 2006 By Sam Duncombe “There are several ways to measure the effectiveness of a democracy. One is to look at how much the public is included in community decision-making. Another is to evaluate access to justice. The most telling aspect of a government however is how it distributes the goods of the land. Does it safeguard the commonwealth - the public trust assets - on behalf of the public? Or does it allow the shared wealth of our communities to be stolen from the public by corporate power?” That was an excerpt from an article by Robert Kennedy Jr., America’s leading environmental attorney. When reEarth began this fight it was not so much whether or not the Bahamas should engage in an industry we had no clue about, it was about the transparent process and Freedom of Information we had been promised by the PLP in their platform “Our Plan.” They also promised to include the people of the Bahamas in all decisions. In February of 2003 we had a meeting with the BEST Commission, and shortly after with the Minister of Health and Environment, Marcus Bethel. On both occasions we submitted a number of questions regarding the way forward for the review of Environmental Impact Assessments EIAs for these LNG projects and how the public could go about submitting their questions and concerns. Unfortunately, the contentious nature of those initial meetings were an indication of things to come. We

believed then and we still believe that a proper environmental review allows the public and government decision makers the opportunity to make a clear assessment of all the costs and benefits of a project prior to its commencement. In the following months we pushed publicly for there to be an open review of the EIA submitted by AES, one of the energy companies wishing to locate an LNG facility in the Bahamas, specifically at Ocean Cay. Our government promised us that the facility would be built according to U.S. standards. U.S standards include extensive pubic consultation. At no time have the U.S. standards for the location and operation of an LNG facility been presented to the Bahamian people. The very first chapter of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s (FERC) “Guidance Manual for Environmental Report Preparation for Natural Gas Facilities states “…a Notice of Intent to prepare an EIA should be mailed to potentially affected landowners as well as other interested parties…” Yet it was 2 ½ years later that the residents of Cat Cay – the closest neighbor less than 8 miles from the project were officially notified by a meeting they called. In the U.S., meetings are conducted by the FERC to hear the community’s concerns about LNG facilities. The proposed project is given a brief introduction of purpose and need by the FERC, followed by the company’s presentation of the project. Persons that wish to comment are given ample time to ask whatever questions they have, or to make statements about the project. I know because I attended and presented to the FERC at a meeting in Florida in May of 2003. However, in the Bahamas the public was limited to one or two questions and these questions were fielded by a moderator. Frankly, we were treated with contempt at home, as though how dare we question the right of government to make decisions for us. By simply emailing the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, I was able to join the mailing list that circulates all correspondence between the US governmental agencies and the LNG companies, a level of inclusion and transparency that has NEVER been offered in the Bahamas. If these simple U.S. standards of public participation have been ignored, how then can we have confidence that our government is going to follow US standards for the environment

for the planning, construction operation, and decomissioning of these facilities? The question that I continue to ask and have yet to receive an answer is “why The Bahamas and not Florida – the recipients of the LNG? Why should the Bahamas bear the brunt of the environmental degradation and safety risks for Florida’s energy needs?” According to the US National Environmental Policy Act, alternative sites should be a part of the applicant’s plan. I met Aaron Sampson, the project manager for AES, and James Ebeling, project manager for Tractebel, at the FERC meeting in Florida. I asked both of them, why the Bahamas and not Florida. Mr. Ebeling told me there was no land available in Florida with a deep-water port. Mr. Sampson’s reply was they could build it in Port Everglades, but the land would cost a hundred million and permitting would take forever. He also echoed Mr. Ebeling about the lack of deep-water ports in Florida. Strange - but lack of a deep-water port is also an issue for the Bahamas. The sea bed around Ocean cay will have to be dredged to create a deep-water port there to facilitate the 12 story LNG tankers that may be docked there. I have great news for both gentlemen; they need not look further than Florida Bay. There are dozens of islands there that could accommodate an LNG facility. Sure, they would have to do a bit of dredging, but it’s right next to their customer base, and should be cheaper than building a 100-mile pipeline, and should result in a cheaper gas for their clients. If that is not acceptable, why can’t they build their own “Ocean Cay” off Florida’s main land that should be a small price to pay for their own country’s energy needs. Or better yet they could take advantage of the latest LNG technology and build a floating regassification facility. So why isn’t this facility being sited in Florida again??? Could it be that there are at least 12 regulatory agencies these companies would have to satisfy to get approval, compared to the one understaffed, overworked BEST Commission here in The Bahamas? Could it be that from California to Florida and Canada to Mexico communities are fighting tooth and nail to keep these facilities out of their back yards? Why would these communities be turning away such a “lucrative” proposition? Why don’t they want the jobs and revenue these facilities promise? In fact states and counties are passing legislation refusing LNG companies to operate in their areas, they include but are not limited to, Rhode Island - Governor Don Carcieri has signed a law effectively banning liquefied

natural gas tankers from Narragansett Bay. East Providence, Suffolk County NY Executive Steve Levy and the leaders of the Suffolk County Legislature announced that they were filing a bill that would prevent the construction of LNG (Liquified Natural Gas) facilities in the waters of the Long Island Sound off Suffolk's north shore. The Baltimore County Council passed a bill Monday banning liquefied natural gas facilities within five miles of homes — essentially blocking the proposed LNG terminal at the Sparrows Point Shipyard Two of Maryland’s State top elected officials have joined the mounting criticism over a liquefied natural gas (LNG) plant being proposed for the former Sparrows Point Shipyard... Fall River, Massachusetts City Council Voted to Oppose LNG Terminal in 2003 In 2003, Mr. Richard Coulson Managing Director of RC Capital Markets asked if he could interview me about LNG. I told him that primarily my concern was the lack of access to the documentation, but that I was also concerned about the impact of laying a 100 mile 24” pipeline on the seabed, as well as pollution from the terminal itself. His concerns were, given the volume of gas that would be flowing through that proposed pipeline, the Bahamas did not appear to be getting the kind of money that it should in “through put” fees. A fee based upon the volume of gas being delivered through the pipeline. Mr. Coulson also indicated that AES is expected to produce revenues of over $1.2 billion. The 15 million negotiated by the government was extremely low, and a royalty of 5-7% would initially generate some $60 million, additionally with gas prices expected to increase so that fee should escalate. Shortly after our interview, Mr. Coulson’s column stated and I quote “Local environmental groups such as reEarth will be quite right in demanding hard answers to questions.” For the record, Mr. Coulson, not one of my questions or yours have received any answers, hard or soft. By October of 2003 after many heated exchanges in the press, the government finally conceded to allow the public to review the EIA for AES. We were given 20 working days to review five 3-4 inch thick volumes of information. May I remind you that our government promised us U.S. standards in all aspects pertaining to this exercise.