September 25, 2017
Business Latest News | Poll Questions | Hurricane Maria | Ayla Reynolds | Obamacare

Comments for: Proposed Downeast LNG import terminal continues to draw objections

Guidelines for posting on bangordailynews.com

The Bangor Daily News and the Bangor Publishing Co. encourage comments about stories, but you must follow our terms of service.

  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):

  • Anonymous

    I can’t figure out for the life of me, why Maine can’t get out of this anemic economic doldrums…..just wish we could figure out how to get more business in Maine while improving its energy infrastructure….well, guess I get back to trying to figure out how to attract businesses to Maine while growing its tax base…..boy, its a stickler…..maybe someone in Robbinston has an iota of a clue…..

    • Anonymous

      Bob Godfrey= NIMBY transplant. Figure it from there.

    • Anonymous

      A real brain teaser.

  • Anonymous

    don’t blame this on Lepage as you can see it is not him. Although he could weigh in and let us know his position

  • Anonymous

    We have been hearing for years that the US has a glut of natural gas, and that we should be EXPORTING the commodity not Importing it.

    If it does not make economic sense to import LNG, I’m not sure why Downeast LNG is pursuing this project.

    Unless it’s all about milking their investors……

    • Mike White

      I believe it is for exporting but that’s not the story being told by the developers. The money is in piping it to export to Europe.

      • Anonymous

        Why wouldn’t the developer accurately state what the project is for?

        • Anonymous

          How often do they actualy tell the truth?

  • Anonymous

    LNG plant is a good idea.
    But these promoters have picked the wrong place at the wrong time.
    Sorry, aint happening. Give it up.

    By the way , where is the story of the 2 elderly women that went over the
    cliff ,on Clark St., in their car and landed on the beach in Eastport last week??
    Sounds newsworthy to me??

    • westshores

      The media is only interested in the “Fiscal Cliff.” Perhaps this story will come to light 20 days from now when the country lands in hot water on it’s ass instead of cold water in a car. I hope the ladies are fine-they must be or we’d have heard something. The media will always report a really bad event-that’s what sells papers.

      • Anonymous

        Westshores,
        Actually , the BDN frequently misses important/newsworthy stories.

        …You didnt hear about the American woman thrown out of Canada and
        sheltered in Calais while her lifelong friend languished in discomfort
        and fear just across the river ,last month , did you ?
        …. No stories /reports on the start of the commercial sea urchin season
        in Eastport/Lubec area.
        ….New Dollar Store going up in Eastport. Lots of ink there. No coverage.
        …..Ocean freighters lined up bumper to bumper at the Port of Eastport waiting to connect with the rest of the world. Again no coverage.
        Perhaps the local reporter is only part time and isn’t able to cover

        very much.

        • Anonymous

          New Dollar Store??

        • westshores

          The woman being thrown out of Canada sounds interesting. I’m surprised that we heard nothing on that one. The BDN used to have many more different regional issues. I think it’s only three now.The paper I get in the summer 23 miles away from Bangor in Hancock County covers different new than the Bangor print.

    • Anonymous

      Picked the wrong place? So, where is the right place? (NIMBY?)

      • Anonymous

        The Robbinston spot is fraught with uncertainties and complications.
        The 30 mile pipeline through the Maine woods is just one example.

        —-Irving EnergyCorp picked the right spot in St John NB.

        Easy access to established infrastructure, pipeline already in place for connecting and well experienced personnel in handling a project of this size.

        Yes,our neighbors to the north got the jump on us again.
        ….Doesnt seem hard to do.

        • Anonymous

          Yep, the second Irving heard of interest of a LNG plant in Washington County Maine, they slammed through with their LNG plant in Saint John. I have no doubt that they have been directly involved with the campaign to block any development here in Maine that might have any competition with their plans.
          red, where was your objection when they ran the pipeline through Washington County before? Not that long ago. Is there anything particularly sacred about the proposed 30 miles of woods route for a pipeline? The voters of Robinston Maine approved the LNG plant in a vote. I don’t live in Robinston but I would support it if I did. It will lower taxes significantly for the people of Robinston.
          I’ll ask you the same question I’ve asked Robert Godfrey. Is there any chance of any industry getting your approval in Washington County. An industry that will employ people with a living wage and decent benefits?

          • Anonymous

            Canaport LNG was developed six years ahead of Downeast LNG.

            You are apparently unaware of ORPC hydrokinetic tidal power project in Washington County. Have you heard of anyone objecting?

            As you have learned many times before, the objection to LNG in Passamaquoddy Bay is not to jobs or to LNG — it is to inappropriate siting, even according to their own industry best practices. They could have moved to an appropriate location and had a much easier time, although they would still be suffering from what all US LNG import terminals, and Canaport LNG, are suffering from — lack of need.

          • Anonymous

            It is unfortunate that people don’t take the time to understand that the first two LNG proposals failed because they were such terrible sites that the LNG industry itself would have disallowed their construction. Their business models were underwater from the beginning, and they NEVER had a snowball’s chance of getting built.

            I guess it’s just easier to blame YOU. No research needed.

            But the Robbinston site seems that it does not have the same geographic drawbacks as the other two.

            But as long as there is no realistic chance to turn a profit, it seems unlikely that this project will find the risk capital needed to proceed.

          • Anonymous

            Downeast LNG’s Robbinston site has many of the same geographic problems as the two failed proposals. The ship transits would place several community populations within harm’s way: the 2.2-mile-radius ship Hazard Zones. The transit is a long, bending, internal waterway. There are several shoal hazards along the route. The whirlpool is a hazard as indicated by the pilots and the Coast Guard. The docked-ship 2.2-mile Hazard Zone includes the Robbinston school, as well as the built-up area of the community, and extends to downtown St. Andrews. The pier extends far out into the waterway, near the ship transit lane, creating an allision and ignition hazard. All of these are SIGTTO best safe practices violations. As Dean Girdis disclosed to the BDN early on, Downeast LNG was ignorant of SIGTTO best practices when it made its site selection.

            The jetty and pier construction would stir up mercury and other heavy metals that have been demonstrated to exist in the waterway bottom, contaminating fish and other species.

            The site is too small to contain the LNG vapor from a release. The vapor fence configuration creates a confined-vapor explosion potential that could project onto highway US-1 and across the highway to private homes.

            Since prescriptive use has been established in the terminal’s intertidal zone, the public cannot be prevented from using it. That creates a security problem for the jetty, and a safety problem for the public.

            Had Downeast LNG selected a terminal located on open water, such as wisely selected by Canaport LNG, 5 miles away from Saint John, NB, and by the EcoEléctrica Peñuelas LNG terminal in Puerto Rico (that Downeast LNG’s Rob Wyatt worked on environmental permitting) the project would not have the numerous insurmountable obstacles that they are facing today that, along with economic reasons, will result in their ultimate failure.

          • Anonymous

            Thanks for the information.

          • Anonymous

            The only reason you haven’t screamed bloody murder about the tidal project is because it is below the water surface. Hidden from view. In your opinion is there any place in Washington County that you could find it in your heart to allow an LNG plant?

          • Anonymous

            Nope. Another immigrant who wants Washington County to stay rural, wild, quaint…and poor.

        • Anonymous

          Are you a harbormaster or qualified sea captain? Someone with the lifetime of experience similar to R.J. Peacock (Capt.) I believe his opinion doesn’t concur with yours. At least the last chance I had to speak with him.

          30 mile pipeline? What a joke. Did you miss the news of a pipeline project that built several hundred miles of pipeline from Canada to New Hampshire a few years ago? Probably slipped your attention.

          • Anonymous

            I will not get in a “spitting contest” with you.
            You have no idea of my background.
            Or of my years of experience on these waters.
            A number of times along side Capt. Peacock.
            Among others.

            Oh yeah , another point you have missed is as follows
            Pipeline from Canada to N. Hampshire :
            Canada and N. Hamp are “open for business”.
            Not sure Maine qualifies in that regard.

            I dont believe this pipeline you speak of started on the shore and went inland.
            Big difference. many details you have overlooked.

            I can assure you this proposed 30 mile
            pipeline , that you scoff at,is not a joke.

            .

  • Back in 2005 when this all began, the greenies all told us one of the reasons this wasn’t a good thing was because we could all make money from ecotourism and we would prosper in Washington County. In fact, they even began a course in it at the college in Calais. So, what happened to all the green, and I mean money, from that?…..anyone?….anyone?…..Exactly, that’s what I thought!

  • Anonymous

    Exactly..Wrong place..Maine…Wrong time..Anytime..(Sarcasm off)

    Can I get me another heaping helping of Quality of Place ?? My mortgage payment is due…

    • Anonymous

      It’s the adult version of a teenager telling her parents, “He and I will ‘live on love’.”

  • Anonymous

    The out of state transplant and the greenies doing their best to keep any new job out of the State of Maine. On the mid coast the only thing one can open is an art gallery, book store, or an antique shop with out a fight. Anything else will destroy the state or quality of life.

  • Anonymous

    “a magnet for objections by area environmentalists who want no part of development.” I placed the period after the word development – fixed that for you

  • Anonymous

    Save Passamaquoddy Bay, is there any place in the bay that you would allow any new development whatsoever?

  • Anonymous

    “In some scenarios that LNG vapor would spill over the cliff and down…”

    In Jr.High science class we learned that natural gas is less dense than air and rises. The scenario of LNG pouring down a hill seems to be pushing reality a bit, especially since it boils away at -257 degrees. Have the physics of methane changed over a few decades, or are the NIMBYs stretching the truth a bit?

    • Anonymous

      If you had studied LNG you would know that LNG (natural gas, mostly methane) vapors are heavier than air until they warm up by 100°F. Heavier-than-air LNG vapors can be carried for miles by the wind before they warm up enough to rise.

      Had you looked at Downeast LNG’s filing to the FERC docket on their vapor dispersion modeling, they indicate the vapors hug the ground. That’s why they are proposing vapor fences — to try to prevent the heavy vapor from leaving the terminal property and going onto someone else’s property. Take a look at the actual PDF document, available at: http://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/common/OpenNat.asp?fileID=13108624

      Take a close look at page 15 (PDF page 16) showing the cross-section of the vapor from a release. The gas is all hugging the ground, and is even sitting atop the vapor fence to the left. Downeast LNG left off the vapor at the right that dropped down to the intertidal zone at the bottom of the cliff. (The previous PDF page contains a top view of the release, showing the vapor on the intertidal zone.)

      • Anonymous

        It’s good to see that you are interested in protecting all of us, from jobs, cleaner burning, less expensive fuel. The last time someone came to my house wanting a petition signed to”protect”us from LNG, it was because she had an expensive home on the water and an LNG tanker didn’t fit with the decor of her retirement home.

You may also like