Critical Data

ALSO
Click Here
to Extensive list of Additional Pertinent LNG Links

FYI - To �send your thoughts to the Governor�s office� as did Conservationist and World Class Fisherman Mike Leech, you can Click Here to send him an email, call him at (850) 488-7146 or send a Fax to (850) 487-0801. His address is The Capitol, 400 South Monroe Street, Tallahassee, Florida 32399. Please take 30 seconds to help stop this nightmare!

Click To Top of Page

Background

September 6, 2008 - When companies successfully apply corporate strategies in the pursuit of lucrative contracts, they earn both respect and investors. Stockholders roast directorial boards or corporate executives whose regulatory entanglements and competitive shortcomings shake the share price. However, when companies eat their own customers for breakfast and usurp human rights with such impunity that they begin to consider good will as a luxury they can�t or won�t afford, flags should go up warning prospective customers that involvement will spell disaster. Unfortunately, it appears that we are facing such an institution; one which we neither sought nor approved. Some federal bureaucrat opened the back door, allowing some shady characters a place at the table.

Public service contracts generally embody a formulaic central premise. Companies agree to provide basic services to a jurisdiction in exchange for the opportunity to sell lucrative incremental services to those with sufficient disposable income. Once comfortably protected by contract or political patronage, companies become predisposed to �cherry pick� when afforded the opportunity, neglecting contractual obligations to provide basic services while concentrating solely on delivering expensive products and services promising high profit margins. When cable companies do this, segments of the population are cheated out of watching the �Game Show Network� or the �Hallmark Channel�. When companies providing power, water or sanitation do it, people die. If this happens, the company supposedly pays a price in two ways. They lose �good will�, which is ordinarily an asset critical to attracting more business. Secondly, they risk the uncertainties of a judicial environment if dragged into court.

FORMER SUEZ CHIEF EXECUTIVE J�R�ME MONOD

These service outlets are called public utilities, defined by Merriam-Webster as �a business organization (as an electric company) performing a public service and subject to special governmental regulation.� Government regulation is implicit in the definition because Noah Webster realized, as do most of us, that when left to their own devices, many businesses gladly chalk up any deaths and/or disasters resulting from their corporate strategy as the cost of doing business. Effective regulation balances the needs of shareholders with the needs of customers.

FORMER FRENCH PRESIDENT JACQUES CHIRAC

Suez, the parent company of the Calypso gasworks, is a $105 billion French Conglomerate inextricably tied to the French government, the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF). Suez� former chief executive, J�r�me Monod, was a leading fundraiser for recently deposed French President Jacques Chirac�s party, the Rassemblement pour la R�publique (RPR). A French court in 1994 ruled that a Suez subsidiary had paid millions in bribes to a RPR federal minister in return for the privatization of Grenoble�s waterworks. Once relieved of Suez in 2000, the re-municipalized Grenoble waterworks offered the cheapest water prices in the country. As Mayor of Paris, Chirac handed over the Parisian waterworks to Suez as a gift to Monod, a mistake that the city plans to correct in 2009, when the Suez contract runs out. Monod left Suez in 2001 and joined Chirac directly as an adviser working from the Elys�e Palace. Recently, to block an �unfriendly� acquisition of Suez by Italian energy giant Enel, the French government brokered a merger between Suez and Gaz de France (GDF), in which they hold an 80% interest.

International financial institutions (IFIs) - including the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) - have supported the global expansion of Suez operations by pressing countries to privatize their public utilities as a pre-condition for loans and debt restructuring. By 2002, 80% of the loans made by the World Bank to governments for water projects were conditional on the privatization of their water utility, usually by Suez or Veolia (the world�s 2 largest water monopolies). Monod was also special counselor to the International Monetary Fund�s director, Michel Camdessus, when Monod was Suez�s CEO. A World Trade Organization strategy promoted the inclusion of water services into the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS), changing access to water from a U.N. mandated human right to a commodity like running shoes or plumbing parts.

When Suez projects do not provide the hoped-for returns and costs are higher than anticipated, Suez uses investment treaties to force governments to compensate them for failed privatization schemes. When governments move to terminate breached service contracts or licenses, Suez threatens to take its claim to the International Center for the Settlement of Investment Disputes, a closed-door tribunal run by the World Bank, despite the conflict of interest stemming from the World Bank�s heavy investment in Suez subsidiaries worldwide.

SOME BROWARD DELEGATES (L to R) - REP MATT HUDSON REP ELLYN BOGDANOFF, REP MARTIN KIAR, REP ARI PORTH REP FRANKLIN SANDS, SEN JEFF ATWATER

At the August 11^th Calypso workshop convened by the Broward Legislative Delegation at the Beach Community Center, a Suez official told Broward residents and their State legislators that he was precluded from discussing safety and security issues by a �confidentiality commitment.� However, once licensed, �you can trust Suez to do what they think is right.� An incredulous Senator Jeffrey Atwater exclaimed �I can�t imagine that a security plan is viewed as a post-licensing decision.� General Manager Patricia Quintero of L�Hermitage I Condominium summarized the community reaction to the Suez assertion that residents should trust Suez with their lives, declaring, �You�re asking us to put all our faith in you and just wait and see what you�ll do. That�s not good enough.�

MASS CONGRESSMAN EDWARD MARKEY

Residents and lawmakers were already disturbed by the abominable safety record of the Suez Distrigas liquefied natural gas (LNG) facility in Everett, Massachusetts, where they were fined $220,000 for safety violations from 2002 through 2005. Although their local Congressman Edward Markey stated that from �direct first hand observation, I have seen a facility where security is either nonexistent or woefully lacking,� Suez official Brad Cooley assured the Broward audience that the violations �weren�t so bad.�

Given that Broward residents are being asked to place the lives of their families and the resolution of an unlimited tax burden in Suez hands, the Galt Mile Community Association and the Central Beach Alliance decided to further investigate Suez record for keeping their commitments. Verifying how Suez expanded its water and sanitation services core business is elementally similar to a Stephen King novel.

FORMER ARGENTINE PRESIDENT CARLOS MENEM

While Suez nurtures a healthy list of human rights violations, their privatization of the Buenos Aires water and sanitation system is demonstrative of their corporate strategy. In 1993, the government of Argentine President Carlos Menem privatized the Buenos Aires water utility under heavy pressure from the World Bank, the IMF and the U.S. government, relinquishing control to Suez Lyonnaise des Eaux (Suez). Suez created subsidiary Aguas Argentinas (AASA) to deliver water services to 10 million inhabitants of Buenos Aires. Two years later, Suez took over the Santa Fe provincial sanitation company. Although they didn�t pay a cent for either concession, Suez promised to freeze water rates and make investments to improve and expand water and sewage services. The contract also obligated Suez to quickly address the water�s high nitrate content and expand sanitation infrastructure.

Suez had to overcome a vociferous anti-privatization labor union to land the deal. World Bank affiliates circumvented the labor �obstacle� with institutionalized and sanctioned bribery, through the Programa de Propriedad Participada (PPP). When the PPP offered union leaders a 10 percent stake in the new company, union opposition dried up and Suez fired half the union�s 7200 workers.

Within a year, a rate increase of 13.5 percent asked of the government�s newly established water authority ETOSS was granted in contravention of the original contract. �What was said in 1993, that there was not going to be an increase in rates for 10 years, was not meant in absolute terms,� said assistant director-general Carlos Ben of Aguas Argentinas. �It was to indicate to the bidders that they should not put a speculative number [on rate reductions]. There was not a presumption of a freezing of rates.�

WORLD BANK ENGINEER MENAHEM LIBHABER

When the World Bank�s investment arm, the International Finance Corporation (IFC), purchased 7 percent of Aguas Argentinas, the World Bank became a partner with Suez in the subsidiary they also serviced as a lender. Menahem Libhaber, the chief water and sanitation engineer for the World Bank in Latin America, said �False promises are simply part of the game when it comes to such huge public contracts. You get into the business with low rates or high commitments � all the while telling yourself, �When we are in we will renegotiate.� The public sector has to be aware,� he said, that companies are disingenuously putting their best foot forward. �Sometimes it�s a game to get into the business. ... And they [the companies] have leverage once they are in.�

To help incentivize a renegotiation of their contract, Suez� Aguas Argentinas subsidiary delayed the promised construction of a crucial Berazategui wastewater treatment plant while dumping 95 percent of the city�s sewage directly into the Rio del Plata River and cesspools - intensifying already dangerous nitrate concentrations. Although the high nitrate levels increased infant fatalities by reducing available blood oxygen, Aguas Argentinas was saving about $100,000 a day in construction costs � adding $35 million a year in profits � according to an estimate from a 1996 World Bank report.

ANTI-SUEZ MARCH IN ARGENTINA

Suez� 15-year operation in Argentina is marked by usurious rate hikes and contract violations, for which it was repeatedly fined by regulatory agencies. Although its contract stipulated that rates would be frozen for the first ten years of the concession, Aguas Argentinas raised rates by 88.2% on average between 1993 and 2003, claiming �unforeseen operating losses.� Those who couldn�t pay, the residents living in poorer districts, lost their service as entire neighborhoods were redlined. By the eleventh year of its contract, in 2004, towns in the serviced urban area were still plagued with high nitrate concentrations and the promised additional infrastructure remained undelivered. Moreover, two million people in the concession area had no potable water, and 3 million had no sanitation services (sewers).

Aware that Suez was preparing to cut bait and leave the country, and that it intended to go to the World Bank�s arbitration board to demand compensation for a claimed breach of contract, the government sent 50 undercover public sector agents into Aguas Argentinas to collect evidence of the company�s misdeeds. The investigators discovered that the company disbursed 25 million pesos annually for no-show �consultants� and paid equally large sums to Suez-linked construction firms for equipment and �repairs� that were never done. The investigation also revealed that the company � just from its day-to-day operations � had more than enough revenue to resolve the drinking water�s excessive nitrate concentrations � in one year�s time.

FORMER ARGENTINE PRESIDENT N�STOR KIRCHNER

On March 21, 2006, President N�stor Kirchner signed a decree rescinding his government�s contract with the Suez Lyonnaise des Eaux, charging them with breach of contract and negligence. Kirchner explained the next day, �Suez, the majority stockholder in Aguas Argentinas, failed to invest in vital infrastructure and much of the water it provided to 10 million people in metropolitan Buenos Aires was contaminated with unacceptably high concentrations of nitrates. Aguas Argentinas even included warnings on its bills to customers, that children shouldn�t drink tap water because it was unsafe!�

Responding to the nationwide anger and frustration bred by Suez, Kirchner underscored his government�s rationale. In view of such negligence and �appalling� service, �the Argentine State decided to take control of the company, to make the investments so that water can be given back to Argentines ... and that it return to being a social asset, rather than something available only to a very few.� The Argentine President noted that Suez had been in the country for 15 years and walked away with hundreds of millions of dollars, �but we had to beg to get just a drop of water.� Kirchner signed a second decree on March 21^st, establishing the new state company � Argentine Water and Sanitation Company (AySA) � and authorized 400 million pesos to immediately build the necessary infrastructure while closing down contaminated wells.

Risking exposure of his government�s questionable ties to Suez, French President Jacques Chirac expressed his anger over the rescinding of Suez� contract through his Foreign Ministry. While ignoring Suez� exploitation of millions of Argentineans, Chirac instead disparaged the lack of �juridical security� for the company�s French stockholders.

WORLD BANK WATER DIRECTOR JAMAL SAGHIR

Suez sued Argentina for damages in the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID), an arm of the World Bank charged with jurisdiction over certain international investment matters. Since the World Bank owned 5 percent of Aguas Argentinas through its affiliate IFC, the court was clearly conflicted. Also, a senior World Bank water and sanitation specialist for Latin America, Ventura Bengoechea, served as the main rate negotiator for Aguas Argentinas. Asked if the bank would be in conflict of interest as the case proceeded, World Bank water director Jamal Saghir said, �I cannot make a judgment. I don�t make a comment on that.�

Suez has a long and sordid history of looting on behalf of the private banking interests it represents. In the developing sector, although it has focused primarily on water privatization, it engages in electricity piracy as well. Metaphoric characterizations of Dick Cheney�s Halliburton and George P. Shultz�s Bechtel Corp. as �the Suezes of America� aren�t without merit given the worldwide economic depredations with which these companies have become identified.

WATER RIOTS IN LA PAZ

In Bolivia, residents of El Alto and La Paz organized massive pressure to terminate a government contract with Suez subsidiary Aguas de Illimani. The contract guaranteed Aguas de Illimani a 13% rate of return while leaving 200,000 (1 out of 3) El Alto residents without access to water. Suez instituted a sky-high connection fee of $435 (US) for a private home to access the water supply. In a country whose yearly per capita GDP is $915, the fee represented a cost almost eight times the monthly minimum wage in Bolivia or six month�s wages for the average Bolivian. By depriving almost half the population of water, Suez precipitated a popular revolt. When the Bolivian Government walked away from the Aguas de Illimani contract because Suez failed to fulfill its contract obligations, Suez brought the case before the World Bank�s rubber stamp International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID). Since The World Bank is a major investor in Aguas de Illimani, owning 8 percent of the company, the ICSID performs primarily as a collection agency for client corporations. On May 1, 2007, the government of Bolivia withdrew from the World Bank�s International Centre for the Settlement of Investment Disputes, citing the court�s admitted conflict of interest.

In Manila, Philippines, after seven years of water privatization under a Suez company contract (Maynilad Water), water rates increased in some neighborhoods by 400 to 700 percent. Philippine Government reports confirmed that company negligence resulted in cholera and gastroenteritis outbreaks that killed six people and severely sickened 725 in Manila�s Tondo district.

Calypso is part of a Suez corporate strategy to penetrate the North American market. Veolia and Suez, the world�s two largest water companies, moved aggressively into the American market in 1999. Veolia spent $6 billion to acquire the nation�s largest water company, US Filter. Suez, which already owned a third of United Water Resources, a private firm based in Harrington Park, N.J., spent $1 billion to buy the entire company. In 2003, Germany�s RWE AG purchased American Water Works Co., based in Vorhees, N.J.

The European companies touted their size, financial wherewithal and expertise to cultivate friends in city halls, state legislatures and Congress. They promised to provide solutions for cities struggling with aging pipes, tight budgets and tough environmental regulations. Over the last decade, major water firms have made more than $4 million in federal campaign contributions, according to the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics. The industry also has given generously to the U.S. Conference of Mayors.

The mayors� conference helped spark the industry�s growth by lobbying the Clinton administration to strike an Internal Revenue Service rule that limited municipal utility management contracts to five years. The 1997 rule change cleared the way for 20-year deals. Suez claimed that long-term contracts allow them to spread capital improvement and operating expenses over decades and provide lower-cost service. With the IRS change, the number of �public-private� water partnerships in the United States rose from about 400 in 1997 to 1,100 in 2003. In pursuit of contracts, water companies have lobbied hardest at the local level, treating office holders to dinners, sports tickets, free trips and campaign contributions. Former Suez Director During justifies Suez� ambitious spending to achieve corporate objectives, �We are here to make money. Sooner or later the company that invests recoups its investment, which means the customer has to pay for it.�

FORMER ATLANTA MAYOR BILL CAMPBELL

In 1999, the City of Atlanta responded to promises made by the European conglomerates that they would control costs and help the city comply with a federal consent decree aimed at stopping sewage overflows into the Chattahoochee River. Suez subsidiary United Water stocked its management team with former city officials and political fundraisers for then Atlanta Mayor Bill Campbell.

Once the City Council approved the $428 million, 20-year contract with Suez and its United Water subsidiary, the companies shifted hundreds of city water and sewer workers onto their payrolls. Campbell called it �a great victory for the people of Atlanta,� predicting that �every city in America will go to privately run water systems.�

BILL CAMPBELL ON PARIS HOLIDAY

A few months later, Suez bankrolled a $12,000 holiday for Campbell and paramour Marion Brooks (former WSB-TV/Channel 2 anchor) in Paris, where the mayor posed for snapshots at Napoleon�s Tomb and the Arc de Triomphe. Although Suez executives later claimed that Campbell�s visit was intended as a legitimate business trip, Campbell only met with company officials for 2 1/2 hours out of the five days Campbell and companion spent on �holiday�. Shortly after the Suez takeover, Atlanta residents began complaining of brown, brackish drinking water and unresponsive service, peaking in the summer of 2002.

PRESIDENT GORDON CERTAIN NORTH BUCKHEAD CIVIC ASSN

Gordon Certain, president of a north Atlanta neighborhood association, said poor maintenance and equipment failures caused recurrent water main breaks and boil-water alerts, at times producing tap water �the color of very well-brewed tea.� It was soon revealed that 400 maintenance staffers initially assumed by Suez from the city were immediately fired according to a corporate strategy aimed at showing stockholders inflated profits early in the project.

NEXT ATLANTA MAYOR SHIRLEY FRANKLIN

After succeeding Campbell in early 2002, Mayor Shirley Franklin said United Water and Suez neglected basic repairs, violated federal drinking water standards, failed to regularly flush impurities out of the system and billed the city for work not done. Blaming the violations on old pipes and power outages, company officials said that since haphazard city records had made it impossible to calculate how much it would cost to run the system before they signed the deal, they planned to quickly renegotiate. The two sides agreed to terminate the 20-year contract in 2003, after four years. By then, FBI investigators were focusing on Campbell�s relationship with Suez.

ATTY BILLY MARTIN DEFENDS CAMPBELL IN FEDERAL COURT

In February 2006, during Campbell�s corruption trial in federal court, United Water executives testified that they spent $4,500 on Campbell�s hotel suite and another $4,500 for a limousine during the Paris holiday they gifted to the former Mayor. A handwriting expert testified that Campbell had signed secret amendments to the contract that would have been worth as much as $80 million to Suez over the life of the deal. Campbell denied signing the documents or otherwise approving the $80-million increase. In March, a jury convicted him of three counts of tax evasion.

WENONAH HAUTER OF FOOD AND WATER WATCH

Suez officials say that their dealings with Campbell were proper and that he did not receive favors for helping the company on its contract. According to Executive Director Wenonah Hauter of industry watchdog Food and Water Watch, �These contracts are usually awarded not through competition but through some kind of shady dealings. In the case of Atlanta, Suez, through its U.S. subsidiary, gave campaign contributions to the mayor�s brother in South Carolina, even though they didn�t have any operations there. It�s legalized bribery.�

Atlanta runs its own water system again and is spending $3.9 billion to upgrade the water-sewer infrastructure. Costs are down and the water is clean. However, they are not unique in regretting their dealings with Suez.

United Water�s operation of Milwaukee�s wastewater system has been marked by repeated sewage spills. A 2002 state audit uncovered that the Suez subsidiary caused 107 million gallons of untreated sewage to be discharged into streams and Lake Michigan. The audit also confirmed that the company triggered a series of overflows by deliberately shutting off sewer tunnel pumps during hours of peak electricity demand, saving itself $515,000. A lawsuit by Wisconsin�s attorney general blames inadequate maintenance for an even bigger discharge in May 2004, when more than a billion gallons of sewage gushed into local waters.

Jersey City officials discovered that United Water picked the pockets of local taxpayers when they diverted $1.2 million worth of the city�s water to other communities in New Jersey without remunerating Jersey City.

Residents of Toms River and Camden, N.J., complained about a lack of accountability after United Water admitted it had failed to warn customers that their drinking water was contaminated. In Toms River, the company neglected to notify some customers for six months of their exposure to elevated levels of naturally occurring radium in the water. In Camden, the company delayed reporting high readings of TCE (trichloroethylene), an industrial solvent that causes cancer and liver damage. New Jersey regulators fined the company $4,000 in Camden and $64,000 in Toms River.

RICHARD HENNING - OOPs

Rich Henning, a United Water spokesman, said the reporting failure in Toms River was the result of confusion over a change in testing protocols. Henning conceded that privatization deals have disappointed customers because, in the push to win contracts, Suez takes on too much risk. �We were kind of hitting each other in the head to get that next contract,� explained Henning.

Officials in Laredo, Texas cancelled their contract with Suez subsidiary United Water when the corporation demanded more money than was agreed to in the contract. Within one year of securing a contract, Suez asked the city for an additional $5 million to cover unexpected expenses plus an annual increase of $3 million.

In Halifax, Nova Scotia, the regional government cancelled its public private partnership contract with Suez subsidiary, United Water. The corporation led a consortium that spent five years negotiating a contract to operate sewage treatment plants. United Water was sent packing after the consortium refused to assume the risks associated with running the sewage treatment system. When Suez insisted that the city accept responsibility for sewerage pumped into the harbor by the corporation in violation of environmental laws, the region�s mayor finally admitted that remaining public will save millions of dollars.

SUEZ OFFICIAL BRAD COOLEY

The Broward Legislative Delegation�s Calypso workshop afforded Broward residents and State legislators an opportunity to ask Suez official Brad Cooley about the planned Calypso security provisions. During his opening presentation, Cooley surprised the audience with the proposition that �Safety is not an issue for this project.� Delegation Chair Jack Seiler disagreed, pointing out to Cooley that the primary community objection to the project stems from Suez demonstrated inability to adequately address public safety. Senator Jeffrey Atwater responded skeptically to Cooley�s statement, admonishing �Safety is the most important issue!�

B.C. SHERIFF AL LAMBERTI

Serving as Suez North America�s Assistant Manager for the Calypso Deepwater Port project, Cooley proclaimed that Suez filed a security plan that was created in cooperation with local authorities. Seeking to verify Cooley�s statement, Senator Atwater asked Broward Sheriff Al Lamberti if Suez consulted with his office at any time to formulate these security measures. Lamberti answered, �No, I have not been consulted on this project.�

SENATOR JEFFREY ATWATER

When Representative Seiler asked the Sheriff about Calypso�s security impacts, Lamberti complained �We�re already pressed for resources to deal with our day-to-day responsibilities in Port Everglades. Where will the money come from to deal with additional needs? What will happen in case of a catastrophic event? We must have the capability to fight anything that might happen in the port as a result of this project. Where will the resources come from for preparation and readiness, not just response? We were already a terrorist target before this project. This will just add one more target that we�ll have to prepare for.�

REPRESENTATIVE JACK SEILER

Asked by Seiler to explain the inconsistencies in his statements, Cooley asserted that the need for confidentiality accounted for his contradictory equivocations about the security plan. Senator Atwater inquired, �Who will be responsible for funding the �additional security� that will be required, local governments?� Cooley told the Senator �We plan to work with local governments at the appropriate time and we would consider shouldering some share of the burden.� Frustrated by Cooley�s nonresponsive replies, the Senator chastised the company for refusing to address security issues until after they received a license.

FRANCES KONSTANCE AND JEAN MILLER

Dozens of residents that addressed the lawmakers during the course of the workshop were similarly disturbed by Suez evasive responses to questions about public safety and security. When Sheriff Lamberti belied Cooley�s contention that local authorities participated in developing a security plan, Cooley altered his statement, promising instead to consult with local authorities at a time deemed appropriate by Suez. After the meeting, Senator Atwater expressed doubts about Suez paying for the safety and security shortfall that was described by Sheriff Lamberti and previously admitted by the Coast Guard.

RESIDENTS DISCUSS CALYPSO WITH PANEL

Atwater, Representatives Seiler and Bogdanoff as well as Broward Sheriff Lamberti were angry about the Suez decision to �surprise� Broward residents with an unfunded mandate that they would have to continuously pay on their future tax bills. When asked about the resources Suez planned to commit towards security costs, Cooley repeatedly intimated that Suez would contribute what Suez thought appropriate. Senator Atwater said �Since Broward is already facing a shortfall, where will the resources come from? This is the reason I recommended to Governor Crist that he veto the project.� Given Suez long history of sacrificing the needs of local populations to increase their bottom line and elevate their share price, relying on this company to voluntarily contribute resources once they�ve secured a license is delusional.

Click To Top of Page

Background

August 20, 2008 - On August 11, 2008, the Broward Legislative Delegation convened a �Calypso Workshop� at the Beach Community Center. Initiated by Oakland Park Representative Jack Seiler and Executive Director Sandy Harris in response to the hailstorm of antipathy and confusion about the planned gasworks off the Galt Mile beach, the event drew about 250 residents from surrounding neighborhoods. Comprised of State legislators elected from Broward County, the Broward Legislative Delegation organized the workshop to edify members about an issue that stirred blistering controversy in eastern Broward County, the installation of a Deepwater Port for the offloading of liquefied natural gas off the coast of Fort Lauderdale.

SOME BROWARD DELEGATES (L to R) - REP ARI PORTH, REP FRANKLIN SANDS SEN JEFF ATWATER, REP JACK SEILER, REP JIM WALDMAN

With Election Day around the corner, the area�s Tallahassee representatives realized some �added value� in the well-attended event, a fact not lost on some of their more obscure opponents, some of who also attended the workshop. Attending members were Senator Jeffrey Atwater, Representative Ellyn Bogdanoff, Representative Jack Seiler, Representative Perry Thurston, Representative Jim Waldman, Representative Ari Porth, Representative Martin Kiar, Representative Franklin Sands, Representative Matt Hudson and Representative Joe Gibbons. While the legislators were ostensibly there to learn, the residents were there to express their concerns to delegates and hopefully to Governor Charlie Crist. Scores of locals lined up to share their anger and fear with the attentive politicians, enumerating a litany of reasons why such a dangerous facility should never have been located near heavily populated beachfront communities.

BEACH COMMUNITY CENTER

The controversy started last December, when Fort Lauderdale City Commissioner Christine Teel gave her usual update to Galt Mile Association officials attending a monthly �Presidents Council� meeting convened to share information about association operations and community developments. Her brief description of a planned liquefied natural gas (LNG) installation a few miles east of the beach surprised the incredulous audience. Unable to conceive that either State or local government would consent to allowing an 18-story fossil fuel plant to scar such an important local asset, confused attendees requested that Association and City officials elicit clarification of this disconcerting news. After wading through the colorful marketing hype and scare tactics on either side of this issue, the unsettling proposition that the gasworks placed the adjacent population in grave danger became an inescapable conclusion.

DISTRICT 1 COMMISSIONER CHRISTINE TEEL

Until recently, natural gas was treated as waste, an unwelcome byproduct that plagued refinery operations. Instead of burning it off at the refinery, technology was developed to liquefy the gas at extremely low temperatures (-260� F), allowing for economically viable storage and transport. While natural gas burns more cleanly than many other hydrocarbons, LNG actually contributes volumes of the carbon dioxide and methane responsible for global warming at a rate comparable to other fossil fuels. Processing natural gas into its extremely low temperature liquefied state releases huge concentrations of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. The hundreds of tankers constantly transporting the LNG leave toxic deisel trails in both the ocean and the atmosphere. When the incremental pollution impact from liquefaction, trans-oceanic shipment, and regasification is added to combustion emissions, the "clean-burning" advantages of natural gas disappear. Understandably, this information is not central to the marketing campaigns of companies engaged in liquefying, transporting and regasification activities, LNG imdustry proponents and paid lobbyists.

FULL HOUSE DISCUSSES CALYPSO WITH DELEGATION

The Calypso Project�s parent is a $110 billion French company called GDF SUEZ, a huge conglomerate filling newly privatized energy, water and waste management niches in Europe, Africa, Asia, South America and the Middle East. Its corporate subsidiaries face worldwide charges of human rights violations (i.e. Aguas Argentinas, in which SUEZ is the majority stockholder, was thrown out of Argentina for selling polluted water). Currently pursuing a merger with French natural gas powerhouse Gaz de France, SUEZ is under fire from European Union regulatory authorities for flagrant anti-trust violations. To obtain EU monopoly clearance for the delayed merger, SUEZ is divesting certain assets such as its Distrigas LNG plant in Massachusetts, whose suitors include Gazprom, the Russian gas utility and Sonatrach, its Algerian counterpart. (Consider the unenviable security implications.)

GMCA ADVISORY BOARD MEMBERS FRANCES KONSTANCE AND JEAN MILLER

Calypso is their third foray into the American LNG market, having built the Distrigas of Massachusetts LLC LNG facility in Everett, Massachusetts that was cited by the Department of Transportation�s Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration for safety violations from 2002 through 2005. They are about to open another Massachusetts LNG plant called Neptune near Manchester and Salem. Offering proof that the Everett plant was a danger to the local citizenry, the Mayors of Everett and Boston closed the SUEZ Everett facility with an injunction that was later vacated when the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) forced the issue into a friendly federal court using subsequently discredited documentation that the plant was safe � over the objections of local Police and Fire Departments in Boston and surrounding communities. A similarly engineered �Independent Risk Assessment� purchased by SUEZ is currently being used to promote that the Calypso plant is also safe. The workshop revealed that neither the local residents nor their representatives believe that SUEZ is remotely concerned about their safety.

A week before the meeting, Delegation Chair Jack Seiler called Bill Rubin from the RBB Group, a well compensated SUEZ lobbying firm responsible for the brazen media distortions falsely intimating that the plant would either lower gasoline costs or make energy more readily available to Broward residents (both assertions were flatly denied by SUEZ personnel at a Galt Mile Presidents Council meeting). After refusing Rubin�s request for a half hour to make an opening presentation of their client�s Calypso gasworks, Seiler finally agreed to a 15 minute presentation.

When the workshop was originally announced in early July, residents interested in speaking at the event were given the opportunity to �sign up� online. Another chance to address the panel was made available as people entered the Beach Community Center auditorium, wherein they could add their names to a list of speakers.

SUEZ OFFICIAL BRAD COOLEY

SUEZ official and Calypso Assistant Manager Brad Cooley first addressed the panel, opening with �I�m here to tell you that the project is safe. We wouldn�t build it if it put anyone on shore at risk.� After stating �We don�t view an LNG tanker as a potential terrorist target,� Cooley enigmatically said, �We�re concerned about a terrorist attack. We�re putting plans together to mitigate an attack. Suez will provide its own resources for an emergency response, including rescue vessels. We filed a draft security manual with the Coast Guard. If resource shortfalls occur, we will make up for them.� Cooley contended that the project was located across from the Galt Mile Beach �to minimize impacts to the local hard bottom environment.� Winding up, Cooley stated that �Under no circumstances would a vapor cloud ever reach shore. The ignitable part of a vapor cloud will only extend 3.8 miles. However, with the Coast Guard involved, there is no reason to worry about this ever happening. The Coast Guard put together a security plan in cooperation with local authorities. Safety is not an issue for this project.�

L-B-T-S MAYOR ROSEANN MINNET

The panel then extended courtesy invitations to attending local public officials, affording them the first opportunity to either respond to the SUEZ statements or express any concerns about or support for the project. City Commissioner Christine Teel read the content of a resolution passed by the City of Fort Lauderdale asking the Governor to deny the dangerous project. Mayor Roseann Minnet of Lauderdale-by-the-Sea informed the panel that her municipality also passed a resolution opposing the Calypso gas plant as did the City of Pompano Beach. Minnet stated, �If we continue down this path, we will see increased harm to our environment and rising energy costs. Wind, solar and ocean energy are plentiful in our area. Florida�s future is energy self-sufficiency not continued dependence on foreign fossil fuels. Wind turbines and solar panels are not attractive targets for terrorists.� Commissioner Suzanne Boisvenue of Oakland Park also spoke against the construction of this life-threatening fossil fuel way-station.

To offset the marketing materials distributed by SUEZ to support Cooley�s presentation, civic leaders armed delegates with a 33-page �White Paper� explaining the issues and diagnosing in detail each of the reasons for asking the Governor to veto the project. Fully annotated with source citations, the White Paper was referenced by panel members in developing questions for Mr. Cooley.

REPRESENTATIVE ARI PORTH

Panel members questioned Mr. Cooley about the statements he made during his presentation. Representative Ari Porth asked Mr. Cooley �why the project was not built in the Bahamas, as originally intended almost 10 years ago?� Once the Bahamian Government investigated the dangers of placing a liquefied natural gas facility in an urban environment, they refused to approve the SUEZ license application. Several relevant events influenced the Bahamian freeze. In 2001, the White House counter-terrorism office announced that al Qaeda operatives were entering the U.S. aboard Algerian LNG tankers making deliveries to the SUEZ Distrigas facility in Everett, Massachusetts. More importantly, despite SUEZ promises that LNG safety technology was foolproof, a similar LNG processing facility in Skikda, Algeria suffered a catastrophic explosion in 2004 when a vapor cloud ignited, killing 23 and maiming 72. The deadly conflagration occurred shortly after Dick Cheney�s Halliburton completely rehabilitated the Algerian gas plant, declaring it a model of safety. Matters worsened when the SUEZ Everett facility was cited for serious safety violations for failing to properly train plant security employees, maintenance staff, and fire protection personnel as well as failure to monitor corrosion control (rusted valves were found).

RESIDENTS DISCUSS CALYPSO WITH PANEL

Mr. Cooley downplayed what transpired in the Bahamas, stating �We applied for a license many years ago. For some reason, the Bahamian Government never responded to our application. Although we do not know why we haven�t heard from them, we became tired of waiting. We decided to finally move the project closer to the U.S. mainland, which would also save a lot of money.� In addition to characterizing the Bahamian refusal to grant them a license as a mystery of life, Cooley also neglected to mention that the SUEZ decision to relocate the facility immediately followed passage of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, wherein changes in the law removed local populations as well as local and State governments from the licensing process. Since FERC, newly empowered as the unilateral LNG licensing authority, could be counted on to do whatever benefited the company (as mandated by a White House Executive Order), SUEZ concern about local opposition by impacted communities threatened with incineration disappeared. They expected an uneventful approval.

BROWARD LEGISLATIVE DELEGATION MEMBERS

Several Legislators asked Cooley about the citations SUEZ received in 2002, 2003 and 2005 for safety violations at their Distrigas LNG plant in Everett Massachusetts. Cooley admitted that the Office of Pipeline Safety fined SUEZ $220,000 for safety violations. He stated that the violations were minor and SUEZ subsequently claimed that the charges were baseless. Cooley also mentioned that the fine was reduced.

MASS CONGRESSMAN EDWARD MARKEY

On July 23, 2002, Massachusetts Congressman Edward Markey, a member of the House Subcommittee on Homeland Security, described the plant�s lack of security to the House of Representatives, stating, �The Distrigas LNG facility in Everett is owned by a Belgian-based energy affiliate of the French conglomerate, Suez. Unfortunately, I have found that security at this facility is sorely inadequate. Both from whistleblower reports and from direct first hand observation, I have seen a facility where security is either nonexistent or woefully lacking.� When initially served with the violations in 2002, SUEZ mounted a $multi-million legal campaign aimed at exploiting regulatory loopholes. While every charge was admittedly true, a few were withdrawn due to statute of limitations protections and legal challenges claiming that the relevant regulations were drafted in a confusing manner. Markey disparaged Distrigas� reaction to the violation notice, �While Distrigas says it is improving its security procedures, it has also said that the company would fight the Department�s proposed fine.� Markey angrily insisted that SUEZ should redirect the resources they committed to exploiting legal technicalities to instead providing the mandated security originally promised to the endangered Boston area. He added, �Only time will tell whether the situation on the ground in Everett will change and whether the companies� European corporate parents will provide the funding and support to allow a �security first� philosophy to truly take hold at Distrigas.�

SENATOR JEFFREY ATWATER

Senator Jeffrey Atwater told Cooley that he was disturbed by his statement that SUEZ thinks that safety is not an issue. The Senator declared �Safety is the most important issue!� Atwater asked Cooley, �Who will be responsible for funding the �additional security� that will be required, local governments? Since Broward is already facing a shortfall, where will the resources come from?� Cooley told the Senator �We plan to work with local governments at the appropriate time and we would shoulder some of the burden.� Atwater turned to Broward County Sheriff Al Lamberti, who was observing from the back of the room. Referring to Cooley�s original statement that a plan was developed by the Coast Guard in cooperation with local authorities, the Senator asked, �Did Suez consult with your office on additional security measures at any time during this process?� The Sheriff shrugged and announced, �Personally, no, I have not been consulted on this project.� Visibly irked, the Senator told Cooley, �I can�t imagine that a security plan is viewed as a post-licensing decision.� Atwater informed the SUEZ official, �I sent a letter to Governor Crist expressing my opposition to this poorly planned project. It was a mistake to locate this type of facility adjacent to heavily populated neighborhoods.� Atwater�s response was roundly applauded by the audience.

REPRESENTATIVE JACK SEILER

Delegation chair Jack Seiler also expressed disappointment at Cooley�s statement, contending that public safety was at the heart of the community�s objection to this project. When Seiler asked him to outline the SUEZ security plan, Cooley said �Our draft security plan is on file with the Coast Guard. However, the details of the plan are confidential.� Seiler clarified, �We�re not asking to reveal the plan�s details, we want to know that it�s capable of responding to prospective threats.�

When Representative Seiler asked the Sheriff about the project�s security impacts, Lamberti complained �We�re already pressed for resources to deal with our day-to-day responsibilities in Port Everglades. Where will the money come from to deal with additional needs? What will happen in case of a catastrophic event? We must have the capability to fight anything that might happen in the port as a result of this project. Where will the resources come from for preparation and readiness, not just response? We were already a terrorist target before this project. This will just add one more target that we�ll have to prepare for.�

GMCA PRESIDENT PIO IERACI

Galt Mile Community Association President Pio Ieraci was among the many complainants who challenged Cooley�s claim that the danger from a pool fire is limited to a 3.8 mile range, as estimated in the �Independent Risk Assessment� paid for by SUEZ. Contrary to Cooley�s statement, the study was not performed by the Coast Guard, but by Houston based Risknology, Inc., a firm that specializes in helping oil and gas companies tailor risk assessments to elicit regulatory approval. Studies from December 2004 through May 2008 by Sandia National Laboratories, the recognized benchmark for LNG hazard assessments, offer examples of ignitable vapor clouds spanning distances of 7.3 to 7.9 miles. Cooley also neglected to mention that the Sandia studies and the Risknology study commissioned by SUEZ warn that an additional minimal cushion of 1 2/3 miles is required to survive the thermal radiation from the resulting 3000� fireball. The total survivable distance from the LNG plant is therefore between 9 and 10 miles. The planned Calypso facility starts only 7.7 miles from Galt Ocean Drive and 7.9 miles from A1A. You do the math. Ieraci pleaded with panel members, �We beckon you to speak on our behalf to Governor Crist to ensure he hears our concerns. Suez cannot guarantee our safety. The Coast Guard cannot guarantee our safety. They can�t protect us against a terrorist attack. This is further dependence on foreign fuel.�

GMCA ADVISORY BOARD MEMBER FRED NESBITT

GMCA Advisory Board member Fred Nesbitt quoted from a December 2007 Government Accountability Office (GAO) Maritime Security report stating that liquefied natural gas (LNG) tankers face �suicide attacks from explosive-laden boats, standoff attacks with weapons launched from a distance and armed assaults� resulting in a �severe threat to public safety, environmental consequences, and disruption of the energy supply chain,� and - most importantly - that �the Coast Guard - the lead federal agency for Maritime Security - has insufficient resources to meet its own self-imposed security standards.� He continued, �If a tanker is breached, the 20 billion gallons of released natural gas would be ignitable by a spark and have the force of a small nuclear bomb. The resulting fire is not suppressible. Local police and fire units have neither the funding nor training to contend with the effects of such an attack.�

FISHERMAN DAVID NEILSEN

Referring to damage that the project�s anchoring system will afflict on the seabed, local fisherman David Neilsen said �You�re going against some of the strongest currents in the world. The chains will hurt the bottom of the ocean. A couple of good strikes of lightning, god knows what will happen.�

PLAZA SOUTH'S BILL CLAIRE

William Claire of Plaza South Condominium accused SUEZ of locating Calypso outside local jurisdictions to avoid accountability. Claire also said it may not matter how far Calypso claims that a vapor cloud can travel. �Piracy has tripled in recent years and LNG tankers are susceptible to being commandeered and steered into Port Everglades before being breached and ignited.�

L'HERMITAGE I MANAGER PATRICIA QUINTERO

General Manager Patricia Quintero of L'Hermitage I Condominium also expressed distrust for Cooley�s unsubstantiated assurances that SUEZ will somehow protect the neighborhood from tanker breaches. Quintero declared, �You�re asking us to put all our faith in you and just wait and see what you�ll do. That�s not good enough.�

PLAYA DEL MAR�S LINDA EIDINGER

Seemingly overwrought, Playa del Mar�s Linda Eidinger explained that after paying her dues, she moved here to enjoy the fruits of a lifetime of sacrifice and hard work. Addressing the panel, she lamented, �I don�t want to live the next 25 years being stressed out wondering whether or not we will be killed in an explosion.�

FORT LAUDERDALE RESIDENT CHRIS CHIARI

Fort Lauderdale resident Chris Chiari told the panel that he became familiar with the project while serving on the Broward County Marine Advisory Board. Chiari contended that Calypso has continuously misled people about the project throughout its history. �They didn�t simply become impatient with the Bahamian Government and decide to move. The opposition to their project became insurmountable for good reason. The Bahamian Government showed real leadership. They decided to protect their citizens from a potential catastrophe. The SUEZ campaign to hide the serious dangers and the additional cost to taxpayers while creating false impressions that this project will lower energy costs has proven that they aren�t trustworthy.�

GMCA V.P. ERIC BERKOWITZ

Regency Tower resident Eric Berkowitz notified the panel about an amendment (H.Amdt. 1024 by Rep. Steven LaTourette [R-OH]) to the Coast Guard Bill in Congress (HR 2830) that allows the Coast Guard to use state or local government resources to assist in enforcing security plans for LNG sites. The amendment makes local taxpayers financially responsible for their own protection and the protection of facilities owned by foreign-based corporations. Berkowitz told the panel �In a July 21, 2008 Washington Times Commentary, Admiral James A. Lyons Jr., commander in chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet (the largest single military command in the world), laments how the Coast Guard�s budget and resources shortfall from their LNG security responsibilities will be filled by local law enforcement agencies. The Admiral complains that, in addition to being an �unfunded mandate on local governments and reducing their resources for traditional community law enforcement protection, they are not trained for this mission. You must have specially trained personnel such as counterterrorist SEALs to defeat a determined terrorist attack.� Furthermore, Admiral Lyons wonders why taxpayer-funded Coast Guard resources are being used to finance security for foreign-based private companies.�

REPRESENTATIVE ELLYN BOGDANOFF AND SENATOR JEFFREY ATWATER

Following the workshop, residents continued speaking with legislators about their concerns. Senator Jeffrey Atwater said that this workshop accomplished two important objectives. In addition to providing legislators with an opportunity to learn about the project�s inherent dangers; they learned first-hand how the people living in adjacent communities feel about being forced to live with these very real threats. �The issue is not whether you are for or against natural gas, but whether dangerous facilities should be allowed in heavily populated areas.� Atwater also disparaged the unfunded mandate on Broward taxpayers forced to underwrite an open-ended security burden.

Representative Ellyn Bogdanoff agreed that the workshop was critically important. �Senator Atwater and I have each spoken with the Governor about why this project should not go forward, explaining that the neighboring communities are understandably vehemently opposed to living under a daily catastrophic threat. Since the workshop has edified some of our colleagues about the project�s downside, more legislators will support our request that the Governor veto this project.� Bogdanoff also said that we should take this opportunity to �prevent additional bleeding of energy dollars to foreign governments, many of whom are openly hostile to our interests.� She asked, �Is there any reason that we want to send more American dollars to Algeria, Iran, Libya or Yemen?�

• Click Here to the Stop Calypso! web site
• Click Here to read the No Calypso! White Paper (Word Document) .
• Click Here to read City Commissioner Christine Teel�s letter to constituents condemning Calypso (Adobe PDF File)
• Click Here to read Broward Commissioner Ken Keechl�s letter to Governor Charlie Crist condemning Calypso (Adobe PDF File)
• Click Here to read the Fort Lauderdale City Commission�s Resolution opposing Calypso (Adobe PDF File)
• Click Here to read the City of Pompano Beach Resolution opposing Calypso (Adobe PDF File)
• Click Here to read Senator Atwater's letter to SUEZ Dan McGinnis disparaging his last minute venue change to Dania (Word Document) .
• Click Here to read Senator Atwater's letter to Governor Crist requesting that he veto Calypso (Adobe PDF File)
• Click Here to read Congressman Ron Klein's letter to constituents opposing Calypso (2007 Word Document) .
• Click Here to read the December 2007 Government Accountability Office (GAO) Maritime Security Report entitled �Federal Efforts Needed to Address Challenges in Preventing and Responding to Terrorist Attacks on Energy Commodity Tankers� (Adobe PDF File)
• Click Here to read the May 2007 Government Accountability Office (GAO) Maritime Security Report entitled �Opportunities Exist to Further Clarify the Consequences of a Liquefied Natural Gas Tanker Spill� (Adobe PDF File)
• Click Here to read the March 2007 Government Accountability Office (GAO) Maritime Security Report entitled �Public Safety Consequences of a Liquefied Natural Gas Spill Need Clarification� (Adobe PDF File)
• Click Here to read the February 2007 Government Accountability Office (GAO) Maritime Security Report entitled �Public Safety Consequences of a Terrorist Attack on a Tanker Carrying Liquefied Natural Gas Need Clarification� (Adobe PDF File)
• Click Here to read the May 15, 2008 Congressional Research Service Report for Congress entitled �Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) Import Terminals: Siting, Safety, and Regulation� (Adobe PDF File)
• Click Here to read the January 9, 2007 Congressional Research Service Report for Congress entitled �Maritime Security: Potential Terrorist Attacks and Protection Priorities� (Adobe PDF File)
• Click Here to read H.Amdt. 1024 to the Coast Guard Bill HR 2830 by Rep. Steven LaTourette [R-OH]) that empowers LNG operators to access local and State resources when formulating a LNG Security Plan
• Click Here to read the November 2, 2005 �Final Order� for Violations, Penalties annd Compliance served on the SUEZ Distrigas of Massachusetts LLC LNG facility in Everett, Massachusetts by the Department of Transportation, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, Office of Pipeline Safety from 2002 through 2005 (Adobe PDF File)
• Click Here to read June 17, 2002 Department of Transportation News article announcing SUEZ Distrigas Safety Violations - �U.S. Department of Transportation Seeks Penalty Against Distrigas for Security and Safety Violations�
• Click Here to read about SUEZ Worldwide Human Rights Abuses - �Backgrounder: Suez corporate abuses and violations of the human right to water�
• Click Here to read a July 21, 2008 Washington Times Commentary - �LYONS: LNG port security� - by Admiral James A. Lyons Jr., commander in chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet (the largest single military command in the world), about how the Coast Guard�s budget and resources shortfall from their LNG security responsibilities will be filled by local law enforcement agencies paid for by local taxpayers
• Click Here to read the December 2004 Sandia National Laboratories Report entitled �Guidance on Risk Analysis and Safety Implications of a Large Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) Spill Over Water� (Adobe PDF File)
• Click Here to read the January 2006 Sandia National Laboratories Report entitled �Review of the Independent Risk Assessment of the Cabrillo LNG Deepwater Port Project� (Adobe PDF File)
• Click Here to read the May 2008 Sandia National Laboratories Report entitled �Breach and Safety Analysis of Spills Over Water from Large Liquefied Natural Gas Carriers� (Adobe PDF File)
• Click Here to read 11-year White House Counterterrorism Chief Richard Clarke's �LNG Facilities in Urban Areas� (Adobe PDF File)
• Click Here to read 1982 Lovins & Lovins Pentagon study entitled �Brittle Power: Energy Strategy for National Security� (Adobe PDF File)
• Click Here to read an address by Lord Peter Levene, Chairman of Lloyds, the world�s second largest commercial insurer, who told Houston business leaders that a terrorist attack on an LNG tanker �would have the force of a small nuclear explosion.�
• Click Here to access all the Background Information and Official Government Documents relevant to the Calypso Deepwater Port Project and Pipeline

Click To Top of Page