ELR Citation: 44 ELR 20037
No(s). 2429 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. Feb 28, 2014)

A Maryland appellate court held that a liquid natural gas (LNG) shipping terminal may export natural gas from its facility on the Chesapeake Bay. In 2005, the terminal entered into an agreement with an environmental group that set forth activities that would be authorized or restricted at the site. Because "export" was not included on the list of authorized activities, the group argued that the terminal should not be allowed to construct an LNG export facility at the site. But considering the agreement as a whole, the statement that the facility is "for the importation, storage, regasification and transmission of LNG" is not sufficient to preclude exports. The dispute concerned what activities are permitted by the phrase “receipt by tanker and the receipt or delivery by pipeline.” The group argued that “receipt by tanker” means that LNG may only be imported. However, the very next phrase—“and the receipt or delivery by pipeline of LNG”—clearly means that natural gas may be sent both ways. In addition, the preamble to the list of authorized activities provides that the terminal may perform "any use or activity" related to the identified operations at the site. Last, had the group intended that the site be used exclusively for import, it was free to seek to include that restriction in the substantive provisions of the agreement. The court therefore affirmed the lower court's declaratory judgment that the agreement is unambiguous and permits the terminal to expand its operations to include exportation.