By most accounts, diplomatic relations between the US and Canada have warmed since Barack Obama was elected president. But in one specific area that could have a profound impact on US energy supply, the two countries are further apart than ever.
This week, on a visit to Washington, Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper reiterated Canada's position that it will not allow liquefied natural gas tankers to pass through Head Harbour Passage on their way to proposed LNG import terminals in Maine. That proclamation came just two days after Maine Governor John Baldacci, during a visit to New Brunswick, said the Canadian government was taking too hard a hard line with respect to Head Harbour. "It just seems like this is being done more on emotions and local politics," he told a local newspaper.
Despite behind-the-scenes negotiations between the US State Department and the Canadian government, progress seems elusive on this issue, which is drawing more political players into the fray.
Maine Senator Susan Collins this week urged David Jacobson, Obama's nominee as ambassador to Canada, to press the issue with the Canadians. She also wrote a newspaper column asserting that Canada has no right to stop commercial traffic through Head Harbour Passage -- a stance with which the Canadian government firmly disagrees, citing safety and security concerns.
Resolution is considered important not just to Maine but to the entire Northeast US, which would benefit from the additional gas supplies delivered to a pair of proposed terminals FERC is considering.
But even as the divide between the two countries remains wide and the rhetoric heats up over the Head Harbour issue, one key development may be lost in the debate: the US is so oversupplied with natural gas that the urgency of bringing new LNG to US shores has all but disappeared. Whether those fundamental energy supply dynamics color this politically charged border dispute going forward will be interesting to watch.
This article has missed the critical issue: The surviving LNG projects proposed for Passamaquoddy Bay (Downeast LNG and Calais LNG) violate LNG industry best practices (SIGTTO), while threatening Canada's populace, environment, and local economy. SIGTTO indicates against siting projects where LNG vapors from a release would endanger civilian population and where there are existing conflicting uses in the waterway. Canada's position agrees with the LNG industry, itself. (See LNG Terminal Siting Standards Organization for an abbreviated list of SIGTTO terminal siting best practices.)
These projects have known since 2007 that they will be prohibited from transiting LNg into Passamaquoddy Bay. And yet, what they have done instead of moving to industry-compliant sites is to pick a fight with a sovereign foreign government. And now, there is a flood of domestic natural gas in the ground and in storage, and there is a surplus of LNG import infrastructure.
They are not needed, and if they were, the problems could be easily solved by moving. A legal fight over this would take years and millions of dollars to resolve. And, it could end up with Canada winning. The US pressing this mooted issue makes no sense, and wastes US taxpayer's money and federal agencies' time.