A scientific seminar in Wiscasset last week was touted as a victory by proponents of a gasification plant, prompting sponsors of the seminar to cry foul.

The Chewonki Foundation, an environmental and educational nonprofit organization which owns land near the proposed Twin River Energy Center, sponsored the October 24 seminar on the topic of "Carbon Capture and Storage."

In a press release sent out on the day of the conference by Twin River project manager Scott Houldin, the company announced that a study they had commissioned was presented at the seminar. The results of the study, paid for by Twin River and conducted by Potomac Hudson Engineering, tracked "carbon dioxide emissions from the initial harvesting of the coal and biomass, transportation to the plant, the production process itself, and ultimate use of the final transportation fuels."

The press release quoted Joe Cotter, president of Twin River's parent company, National RE/sources, as saying "The scientific analysis has proven what we've said all along."

However, Chewonki issued a press release the next day titled, "Leading Scientists Offer Little Hope for Carbon Capture and Storage in Maine," in which Chewonki said the study by Twin River "has yet to undergo peer review."

Referring to Twin River, the Chewonki release said, "The company asserts that they can overcome obstacles presented by the day's leading scientists. If approved the plant would instantly become Maine's largest source of carbon dioxide."

Chewonki also disputed the claim by Twin River that "the proposed Twin River project was the centerpiece of discussion at the seminar…"

"The Chewonki Foundation organized Wednesday's seminar as a way to advance the regional debate about climate change and also to improve the state's understanding of carbon capture and storage, an emerging technology that shows great promise for slowing the disastrous effects of global warming by permanently storing carbon dioxide deep underground."

Chewonki president Don Hudson said this week that the technology is promising, but as one of the speakers at the seminar said, capturing the carbon dioxide and piping it more than 500 miles off shore would not be practical.

"If it were economical to do this in this region, we would support them," Hudson said. "But these kinds of uses will probably be in the coal regions of the U.S. The vast interior of the county is more suitable for this technology because the carbon dioxide can be stored underground, and the coal won't have to be transported as far."

Sarah Forbes, who was hired by Twin River to present results of the study, said in the press release, "The study provides a roadmap to assist decision makers in understanding the opportunities for carbon capture and storage at the Twin River Energy Center."

Asked about this, Hudson said, "There may be something in the future that will be a roadmap, but right now the roadmap shows there's a dead end. It's a well crafted sentence, but it's a roadmap to nowhere."

Another study presented at the conference, according to the Twin River press release, "The Future of Coal" by MIT said, "Coal will continue to play a large and indispensable role in meeting the U.S. energy needs for the near future."

Lowering the country's dependence on foreign oil has been a constant message Twin River has emphasized since the project was announced last summer. In a publication forwarded to the newspaper this week by Twin River, Environment Northeast presents a summary of the proposed project, noting "The Twin River Energy Center developers claim that the proposed project would benefit the region by stabilizing energy prices, diversifying Maine's energy portfolio and reducing supply vulnerability, reducing nitrogen oxide and sulfur dioxide emissions and producing low sulfur diesel fuel for transportation. The developers further claim that the project would be designed to capture and sequester carbon dioxide when the technology is proven and available."

Twin River representatives have said throughout the discussion that they are aware of the need to further develop the technology, which is the reason part of the project proposal includes a research center.

Commenting on the need to lessen dependence on foreign oil, Houldin said, "We've reached a point in the U.S. when it has become painfully clear that our dependence on costly foreign oil is a very significant threat to our economy and to our national security."

"A few years ago, people would have laughed if it was suggested a barrel of oil would be near $100. Now, people and companies are struggling to make ends meet and stay above water. New England is hardest hit because most of our energy comes from the high cost natural gas. The move to the domestic fuel source using clean coal gasification means Maine, New England and the U.S. can diversity our energy choices and reduce our dependency on foreign oil. The benefits of this simply cannot be overstated."

Another press release issued on Tuesday, from Sarah Forbes who spoke at the evening panel discussion, related to her involvement in the conference. Forbes, who works for Potomac Hudson Engineering, said she was first hired by Chewonki to organize the seminar and "were later encouraged by Chewonki to approach Twin River Energy" on an independent analysis of the projected carbon dioxide emissions.

"Our analysis was unbiased. After a peer review is complete, the final report will be delivered to Twin River." The analysis showed that "with at least five percent biomass and 25 percent carbon capture, producing and using the electricity and liquid fuels could emit less carbon dioxide than a modern natural gas plant and oil refinery producing the same products. Experts at the conference agreed that "there is insufficient geological information about carbon dioxide storage potential in the northeast in general and Maine in particular, to adequately assess the feasibility of carbon capture and storage."