Guidelines for posting on bangordailynews.com

The Bangor Daily News encourages comments about stories, but you must follow our terms of service.

In brief:

1. Keep it civil and stay on topic
2. No vulgarity, racial slurs, name-calling or personal attacks.
3. People who harass others or joke about tragedies will be blocked.

The primary rule here is pretty simple: Treat others with the same respect you'd want for yourself. Here are some guidelines (see more):

It should be noted this is not a comprehensive list.

• Don't insult one another or the subjects of BDN stories. You may be ticked off at what someone did or said, but you can explain that without resorting to name-calling or obscenity. Remember that young people are on this site too.
• That nasty line that makes your buddies go "haw, haw"? You're better than that.
• Comments should be your own work, not copied and pasted from elsewhere, though brief quoted passages to make your point are fine. And please don't use all capital letters. There's no need to shout.
• Stay focused on the issue in the article. Off-topic posts will be deleted.
• This isn't a forum to chat about your personal life.
• Some ideas — the fate of the earth, abortion, gun control, the nature of God — aren't going to be resolved in a reader forum, so no need to get frustrated if others don't see your point of view. State your position once and leave it at that.
• If you mouse over each comment you will see a "Flag" button. Please use it if you feel comments on the site are out of line. Quite often, we won't see a comment until it's reported.
• Questions about why a comment was — or wasn't — deleted? E-mail us at web@bangordailynews.com and let us know your username and where you posted or saw the comment.

That's about it: Stick to writing about the stories; be civil; be kind; enlighten your neighbors. And we'll keep moderating posts to try to ensure everyone meets those standards.

• Anonymous

  I see a link between this article and the Forbes Article.
  I see a link betweent this article and unemployment in Washington County and Maine.
  I see a link between this article and expensive energy cost in Maine and the USA.

• Anonymous

  We are exporting more LNG that we are using. That is true. However should we impede the opportunity to export anything from our country? Even LNG?

• Anonymous

  Producing natural gas from shale is unsustainable. First, is the impact on drinking water. A major study has shown the link between chemicals used in fracking and carcinogens in drinking water in Wyoming. More, way more important, is the release of methane in the production of natural gas. 8% of methane from production escapes into the atmosphere. Methane is 100 times more heat absorbent than CO2. Methane is warming the planet a lot more than CO2, which is why producing natural gas from shale is unsustainable.

• Anonymous

  Real good my wealthy ones, Lets do away with job potential, reduced fuel cost and not one bit of problem with environmental. Its all about your personal agenda.
  Thanks for nothing.

• Anonymous

  It is people like Robert Godfrey and the save Passamaquoddy Bay Group is the reason Maine is at the bottom of Forbes List.

• Anonymous

  There is plenty of natural gas already available in Maine, as is evident by the distribution pipelines being built in the state — including to the Woodland mill in Baileyville. The problem is distribution infrastructure and cost-return realities, not the lack of natural gas.

  Girdis’ claim that pipelines can’t be expanded to carry a greater volume is even contradicted by his project’s own website, as it appeared today: http://www.downeastlng.com/why.php

  In paragraph 2: “… Only the Maritimes & Northeast (M&NE) pipeline has expansion capacity available, up to 2.2 bcfd from its current capacity of 500 mmcfd. ”

  …and in the first paragraph under the heading, New England: Increasing Gas Supply Connections:

  “… M&NE can readily expand capacity to serve demand growth.”

  Natural gas imports from Canada in the Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline are declining due to the increased supply coming from the US. Canaport LNG in Saint John, New Brunswick, is operating at only around one-third its capacity. The two other new LNG import terminals in Massachusetts Bay are nearly idle.

  This region alone has multiple-times the LNG import infrastructure predicted to be needed by the entire country – Canaport (1.2 bcf/day), Distrigas in Everett (0.715 bcf/day), and Northeast Gateway (0.8 bcf/day) and Neptune LNG (0.75 bcf/d) in Massachusetts Bay, totalling 3.465 bcf/day. The US Department of Energy predicts that the near-future US LNG imports will total only 0.7 bcf/day, and will drop farther off the cliff in the future. Even Trinidad and Tobago, the largest LNG supplier to the US, whose supply to the US has already dropped about 66%, is predicting their exports to the US to drop to zero.

  Importing more LNG would increase US reliance on fuel imported from overseas and would increase the US trade imbalance. Attempting to add more LNG infrastructure in Maine or anywhere else in the lower 48 states makes no business sense — unless all you need is one huge tax write-off from a failed project (putting a greater tax burden on the rest of the US population).

  If Downeast LNG actually believed their project were needed, all they would have had to do is to move to a site that complies with the world LNG industry’s own terminal siting best safe practices. They could have then satisfied one of the two US Coast Guard’s roadblocks to the project. The requirement is that Downeast LNG obtain Government of Canada cooperation and coordination for safe and secure transits in both Canadian and US waters — an issue totally unrelated to Downeast LNG’s Law of the Sea innocent passage claim or to any US-Canadian maritime treaty. Quite simply, even if Canada were to passively allow LNG transits, they have no treaty obligation to coordinate or cooperate with secure transits.

  It is clear that Downeast LNG would rather fail than do the diligent thing from a business perspective. That alone betrays Downeast LNG’s false front; they never expected the project to succeed in the first place, and they still do not. All the developer (Girdis) is interested in is a good salary  so long as he can keep the project alive, and all the venture-capitalist backers are interested in is a huge tax write-off on a project they never expected to succeed.

• Anonymous

  Investment bank Goldman Sachs knows how to make money, even when it is losing money. Goldman withdrew its investment in Calais LNG in July 2010 for a good reason: Calais LNG has no viability due to the decades-long domestic natural gas surplus. Goldman Sachs now advocates exporting LNG, not importing it. 
   
  Downeast LNG lacks the same business viability for the same reason, as well as for others already mentioned — only in Downeast LNG’s case, venture-capital investors Kestrel Energy Partners and York Town Energy Partners apparently seek multi-million-dollar tax write-offs instead of profit.

• Anonymous

  Is there anything that the Godfreys and their allies will allow in Washington county? It seem that the only growth industry at the moment is assisted living facilities and nursing homes. God forbid that they attempt to build one near the Godfreys.

• Anonymous

  Mr Godfrey, please enlighten us with what you have done to create jobs in Washington County  What is that I hear? Ah yes the sound of crickets, You and your group with the likes of recently recalled Perry selectman John Cook seem to be very good at saying no to anything and everything.  With NO solution or any personal investment in creating opportunities in Washington County.

• Anonymous

  This project would create many jobs.  How about we take the names of anyone who opposes this project.  If they’re drawing unemployment, STOP THEIR BENEFITS IMMEDIATELY.

  This is nothing more than NIMBY. 

• Anonymous

  You are the type of people we do not need here – divisive and self protective- go home

• Anonymous

  what about exporting the gas via LNG ? what about the infrastructure a 30 mile pipeline would bring. If we let them build it gas can flow both ways and the gas can be tapped by communities reducing foreign oil. Ps you know nothing about the gas line in woodland and the reasons and circumstances related to it.

• Anonymous

  The only reason the LNG shills came here is because they thought they could manipulate a bunch of poor desperate people who would believe anything they told them. They spread a little money around, took out some options and lease to purchase agreements, and started leveraging the tax credits versus the cost of maintaining a front. I’ll bet Dean Girdis is still getting paid from someone. They knew that industry surveys showed that there was little need for such a facility, and that there was a well-funded LNG terminal being built 50 miles away, with access to the same pipeline and less logistical problems, that would mean there was no need at all very soon. They milked their investors and the government money for all they could and then they packed up and went elsewhere. It’s fine if Mr. Godfrey thinks Save the Bay turned away LNG, and for the people burned by the developers Godfrey gives them a straw man to get all fussy about, but the fact is if there was a need, and the big money thought this was worth it, we’d have an LNG terminal around here by now. The Arabs and bankers  that write the big billion dollar checks aren’t scared of a few hundred people protesting. Corporations with real resources could have buried “Save the bay”, and greased the path with our Canadian neighbors if they thought it would pay off. The old saying, “money talks, bulls**t walks” comes to mind.

• Anonymous

  The Save us groups ,No Common sense groups along with the TreeHuggers up north are only intrested in regaining there youth as a bunch of draft evading old hippies
  ps. Hows those tax dollar supported pay checks holdinig out? Like to write more but I have to go to work to support these free loaders. 

• Anonymous

  Saving Passamaquoddy bay for who?  It is people like the Save Passamaquoddy Bay Group that has killed Washington County.
  MAINE……A GREAT PLACE TO DIE.

• Anonymous

  Canada doesn’t want those LNG tankers comming through their waters to the US. I wonder how they feel about spilling radioactive water from Point Lepreau?
  http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/AtlanticHome/20111213/point_lepreau_111213/