Skip to main content.

March 04, 2009

Sears Island boondoggle

State to spend $100,000 on "marketing" to "find" somebody to develop and run a container port

Mack Point sunset, Searsport, Maine
Mack Point: Already-industrial site not good enough?

I've never understood why the development-minded authorities in Maine government have insisted that Sears Island is just the place for a nuclear power plant / coal power plant / liquefied natural gas terminal / container port.

The last item is the current plan, heavily promoted and in the process of being greased by Governor Baldacci and a variety of officials. There are serious legal questions about how they are operating, raised by activist Ron Huber in a lawsuit described HERE.

Here are my observations on the subject, for what they're worth.
  • The port would be a boondoggle that no one will be interested in without being "sold" through this crazy taxpayer-funded marketing campaign, my guess designed to dangle all sorts of taxpayer-funded enticements before potential developers.
  • As a large, undeveloped island--a very rare thing to have right along the coast, the highest and best use of the entirety of Sears Island is a park preserved in its natural state.
  • The state could use the conserved site to help promote the incredible tourism opportunities and the small businesses that serve visitors.
  • The state should focus its port efforts on cleaning up and developing the perfectly good facilities at Mack Point. The port potential there almost certainly encompasses the maximum possible for the area.

I'm sure someone has a reason why Mack Point sucks as a port. Go ahead, talk me down...

Posted by The Owl at 18:58. Filed under: Environment

Comments

Has the likely future of container shipping been factored into the Sears Island discussion? I recall that when oil was $140 per barrel there was considerable discussion about whether the global network of just-in-time parts supply and transcontinental shipping of finished products was a likely casualty.

Jonathan

Posted by jfribley on March 04, 2009 at 22:18

I guess that's really my question too. I think one of the ideas always has been wood products export. This pops up in some discussion-- Hey! We can chip up the forest and send it somewhere they can make something with it! There was a time when that was happening big time out of Portland. Otherwise, I think it's just a pipe dream that they'll build a some kind of desirable hub for parts or manufactured goods there.

Posted by The Owl on March 04, 2009 at 23:11

MDOT and the entire Sears Island Planning Initiative agreed that Mack Point should be the preferred alternative. The Agreement, endorsed by the Gov, MDOT and the Transportation Committee says, "Mack Point shall be given preference as an alternative to port development on Sears Island." No consulting money should be spent until Mack Point is fully evaluated.

Bad Faith revisited.

Also, you forgot to mention that BEFORE there were Sears Island developers looking for a nuclear power plant there was a proposal to build an oil refinery (yes, that's right, oil refinery) on SI. Bob Monks, I think.

Posted by Anonoumous on March 09, 2009 at 18:14

Ah, yes. The Pittston Co. proposed several refineries for New England in the 1970s. However, the proposed site in Maine was Eastport. This remained a very active threat into the 80s, but was dying by the time I moved here in 1981. So it wasn't Sears Is. that was to have been a refinery, unless there was *another* proposal I don't remember.

Posted by deepblade on March 09, 2009 at 18:53

I was attending college at the University of Maine at the time and didn't follow the refinery proposal very closely but a company called Maine Clean Fuels sought a permit to build a refinery on Sears Island in the '70's. I have a copy of a Phyllis Austin piece in the Friday, April 9, 1971 Kennebec Journal (which, by the way, cost 15 cents then) describing opponents' arguments made during a hearing for the permit. It was denied.

Our coastline has been embattled since Europeans first visited! But, keeping an eye on the ball, we all need to rally on behalf of Sears Island again today. Taking the long view.

Posted by anonymous on March 10, 2009 at 18:05

I used to buy the KJ for 25 cents when I lived in Augusta (mid 80s).

"Maine Clean Fuels" comes up in the Time Magazine archive:

http://www.time.com/time/ma...

"Clean Fuels wants to build?but not operate ?a $150 million oil-desulfurization plant at the head of glorious Penobscot Bay. The proposed site: the little town of Searsport (pop. 1,800), a drab, faded conglomeration of weather-beaten brick buildings, a railroad depot, an oil tank farm and a Purina Dog Chow silo. Though Clean Fuels had previously been turned down by both Riverhead, N.Y., and South Portland, Me., it was in effect invited to Searsport, whose selectmen have already approved the 200,000-barrels-a-day refinery. 'I'm not for pollution,' says Paul Staples, owner of a Searsport hardware store. 'But if we don't get some added industry, Searsport may just kind of peter out.'"

Posted by The Owl on March 10, 2009 at 21:17

Interesting.

E. B. White wrote about the Maine Clean Fuels Sears Island refinery proposal in the March 27, 1971 New Yorker,saying, in part, "A company called Maine Clean Fuels wants to build a refinery on Sears Island, at the head of Penobscot bay, bringing barges and two-hundred-thousand-ton tankers slithering through the fog-draped, ledge-encrusted, tide-ripped waters of one of the most beautiful bodies of water in Maine or anywhere. The proposal sticks in all our crops."

Thirty-eight years ago this month!

Sears Island may be THE icon of coastal Maine, where a huge range of attitudes about life, love, nature and the human condition largely converge into two very different forces - biophilia and anthropocentrism.

Posted by anonymous on March 11, 2009 at 12:21

Thanks for that, anon.

I just posted a related item here:
http://maineowl.net/blog/it...

Posted by The Owl on March 11, 2009 at 14:15

Baldacci,Cole,Damon (also head of the Marine Resources Committee ! ) rammed this one through the newly-formed Transportation Committee in two short meetings. Baldacci's "Executive Order" basically forced the approval, yet as this was done, NO DISCUSSION OCCURRED at all about the proposal to use the Conservation Easement as the foundation deposit for a statewide mitigation bank -- and without the mitigation bank, there can be no port because too much environmental damage will occur for the " old-fashioned" mitigation approach. This was outright sleazy, corporate-looted law-making at its worst. Listen to the tapes of the meetings (available on the PenBay website)and be as shocked as I was -- no one seems to have figured out all this underhanded dealing. Or does it simply not surprise us anymore ? This port will destroy Searsport's beauty, tourist-allure, the Harbor's ecosystem, the wild island, and yes, even Searsport's ECONOMY. Our elected officials need to understand it's 2010, not 1950. Wild places are more valuable than ever before.

Posted by Sally Jones on August 02, 2009 at 19:12

Thanks, Sally. I have a new item posted here: http://maineowl.net/blog/it...

Posted by The Owl on August 03, 2009 at 02:12

Go hug somthing Sally there are no jobs in concerving an island.A sea port bring jobs and tax revenew to the town and state witch you might have noticed is badly needed. I know, I pay taxes here.You are right it is 2009-2010 not 1965.WE NEED to stop trying to jail resores, just use them responcebly.So stop hammering nail into trees and join us in the 21st.

Posted by annonemes on August 03, 2009 at 08:26

annonemes--Read the post. There is already plenty of port development at Mack Point, notwithstanding vague arguments that it's not good enough. It's very revealing that the Baldacci administration has to hire a California(!) firm to figure out if anyone is interested in bringing all these "jobs".

Posted by The Owl on August 03, 2009 at 11:02
This item is closed, it's not possible to add new comments to it or to vote on it

Previous Item - Archives - Next Item