October 18, 2013

Portland Pipe Line gives up permit it would need for tar sands oil

The company makes the rare decision amid the battle over a proposed South Portland ordinance.

By Matt Byrne mbyrne@pressherald.com
Staff Writer

Portland Pipe Line Corp. has surrendered a permit it would have needed to reverse the flow of its 236-mile underground pipeline and bring in so-called tar sands oil from Canada to South Portland’s waterfront.

click image to enlarge

Oil is off-loaded from the tanker HS Electra at Portland Pipe Line’s pier facility in South Portland. A proposed city ordinance would limit any alteration of petroleum facilities to change their function or capacity.

John Ewing/Staff Photographer

The unusual step is a direct response to the company’s critics, who pointed to the environmental permit as proof of an impending project despite Portland Pipe Line’s denials of any intention to pursue one.

It also reflects the charged atmosphere of the campaign leading up to a high-stakes local referendum on the issue Nov. 5.

Although giving up the permit does not preclude the company from applying for another one in the future, Portland Pipe Line CEO Larry Wilson issued a statement Thursday calling it “one more good-faith commitment to this city that we do not have a pending or proposed, or let alone imminent, ‘tar sands’ project.”

Environmental activists say tar sands crude is especially risky because it is sticky and corrosive and its export into the global market will accelerate climate change. Spills of the oil – especially in bodies of water – have been particularly difficult to clean up.

Petroleum industry representatives say the oil poses no greater risk of leaks or spills than the crude that already flows through the pipeline.

The permit, granted in 2009 by the Maine Department of Environmental Protection and extended last year through February 2014, would have allowed Portland Pipe Line to build two 70-foot-tall vapor control units on its pier in South Portland. The units, which look like smokestacks, would have burned off vapors released during the loading of crude oil onto ships for export.

Surrendering a permit is unusual, said Jessamine Logan, spokeswoman for the DEP. She said that if Portland Pipe Line were to apply for a similar permit in the future, it would have to pay the fees again and start the approval process anew.

Edmond Bearor, who has practiced environmental law for more than two decades and is now a partner in the Bangor firm Rudman Winchell, said he has never seen such a surrender in his career.

“I can’t think of a much rarer event,” he said. “These people don’t take these decisions lightly. There were probably hours of meetings and strategizing with their lawyers and engineers.”

Since May, petroleum companies that operate in South Portland and residents who don’t want tar sands oil in the city have battled over a proposed zoning change, called the Waterfront Protection Ordinance, which would bar tar sands oil extracted in Alberta from flowing through the city.

The ordinance would strictly define the unloading of petroleum as an allowed use in South Portland’s shipyard district and limit any expansion or alteration of existing petroleum facilities that would change their function or capacity.

In the face of a public campaign against the Canadian oil, Wilson and other Portland Pipe Line officials have said there is no active pipeline reversal project.

But members of Protect South Portland, the citizens group campaigning for passage of the zoning change, have said repeatedly that they distrust the company’s claim. Until this week, they pointed to the permit as proof that the company was disingenuous in its denial.

“The opponents have raised this in their mind that this could be brought back imminently,” said Jim Merrill, a spokesman for Portland Pipe Line. “There is nothing pending. There is nothing proposed. They have surrendered this permit to the DEP.”

But with the potential for another permit application, Cathy Chapman, spokeswoman for Protect South Portland, said, “This is just another in a line of flip-flops that Larry Wilson has been doing on this issue. ... He says whatever is convenient at the time.”

(Continued on page 2)

Were you interviewed for this story? If so, please fill out our accuracy form

Send question/comment to the editors

Further Discussion

Here at PressHerald.com we value our readers and are committed to growing our community by encouraging you to add to the discussion. To ensure conscientious dialogue we have implemented a strict no-bullying policy. To participate, you must follow our Terms of Use.

Questions about the article? Add them below and we’ll try to answer them or do a follow-up post as soon as we can. Technical problems? Email them to us with an exact description of the problem. Make sure to include:
  • Type of computer or mobile device your are using
  • Exact operating system and browser you are viewing the site on (TIP: You can easily determine your operating system here.)