Wednesday, December 2, 2009

Would Dean Giridis of Downeast LNG try to get this ship through Head Harbour Passage?

Get the pictures and subscribe at: 

Peter Walsh/Telegraph-Journal
The Q-Flex MV Mesaimeer in the Bay of Fundy, with Mahogany Island in the foreground, 
waits to dock at the LNG plant Tuesday.

Interesting questions raised. How much does it cost for every day that it stands off out there I wonder? What is the exclusion zone that is in force?  Would this ship try Head Harbour Passage? 
Gas: The Q-Flex is the second-biggest ship of its kind in the world


SAINT JOHN - The first LNG super tanker to arrive on North America's east coast is anchored in the Bay of Fundy waiting to be berthed at Canaport LNG, where it will discharge enough liquid natural gas to half-fill the facility.

The Q-Flex MV Mesaimeer, one of the largest and most advanced vessels of its kind, was scheduled to berth at the Canaport LNG jetty on Tuesday morning but, when the winds changed, so did the plan, said Canaport LNG spokesman Kate Shannon.

Because berthing the huge vessel is dependent on weather and tides, Shannon is unable to say when it will approach the jetty, but is confident it will be in place by the end of the week.

At 315 metres long, the Q-Flex is the world's second largest LNG tanker with a capacity that is roughly 55 per cent more than its predecessors.

It is 78 metres longer than ships received at Canaport LNG to date and is carrying 216,000 cubic metres of liquid natural gas; ships received to date at Canaport LNG have delivered 138,500 cubic metres.

The largest in the world - the Q-Max - can carry 266,000 cubic metres of LNG.

"This is the biggest one we've had here," Shannon said of the Q-Flex. "Our facility has the capability to take a ship that large."

The Q-Flex has travelled 22 days and 15,000 kilometres from Ras Laffan Industrial City in Qatar and is described as "one of the largest and most advanced vessels of its kind."

Canaport LNG general manager Jorge Ciacciarelli said the arrival of the first Q-Flex is a "significant step" for the state-of-the-art facility.

Read the entire article here:

Monday, November 30, 2009

Qatari LNG at Canaport may weaken NA gas prices

Get the pictures and subscribe at:

Qatari LNG Tanker Expected to Arrive at Canaport LNG Terminal This Week
Posted: November 30, 2009

Platts LNG Daily [subscription required] reports that the LNG carrier Masaimeer is expected to deliver an LNG cargo from Qatar to the Canaport LNG terminal this week. Several industry analysts told Platts that this development may contribute to continuing weakness in North American natural gas prices.

Photo Credit:

Tuesday, November 3, 2009

The Fundy tides of change threaten to sink Dean Girdis of Downeast LNG

Dean Girdis of Downeast LNG has been spinning and spinning; blaming the Irvings, the government of NB, the government of Canada and anyone he can think of for Canada's stand on the passage of LNG tankers through Head Harbour Passage when, all along, its been the people here who have sought and received the support from their politicians to protect a sustainable economy based on the most unique ecosystem on the east coast; an economy that employs thousands and brings in 1/2 to 1 billion dollars each year. Well this article by Girdis in the BDN sings the same divisive songs he been singing since this Yankee carpetbagger arrived.

But guess what? Read the comments to his article. His hold on intelligent Mainers is disappearing before his very eyes. Amazing! I have renewed faith and pride in our friends "Ova the riva". Thanks on behalf of everyone over here, eh!!

Time to "put a sock in it" Dean and head home to Washington, DC.


PS. Remember Dean? I think it was the Bangor airport where I told you I would be there to take you on no matter what. Now my friends, lets turn the screws harder on Downeast LNG and Calais LNG. They care not for us and it is truly a battle - winner take all!


Canada expects Maine to be its energy doormat  by Dean Girdis

While Maine is open to being New Brunswick’s energy partner, Canada expects Maine to be New Brunswick’s energy doormat.
New Brunswick has ambitious plans to become an energy hub. It touts its nuclear power plant, oil refinery, hydropower and LNG terminal — boasting on the provincial Web site “We have the infrastructure and distribution systems to deliver this energy to the Eastern United States. We are geographically ideal to reach these markets.”
Ideally located, they might add, as long as they can use Maine to get their energy to population centers in the U.S.
You would think that this would be a great opportunity for Maine and New Brunswick to work together, especially given the long-standing economic and social ties between these neighbors.
Unfortunately, Canada doesn’t really want a partnership. A real partnership would have benefits for Maine, too. Instead, New Brunswick Premier Shawn Graham, MP Greg Thompson and other Canadian politicians are indulging in a totally self-serving double standard when it comes to their opposition to LNG across the border in Maine.
Five years ago, Downeast LNG set out to build a safe and environmentally sound project that will bring many new good-paying jobs to Washington County and create a new source of clean-burning natural gas for Maine and the Northeast. Agreeing with Gov. John Baldacci that no major development project in Maine should go forward without the support of local residents, we sought and received the overwhelming support of the people of Robbinston.
Permitting a project of this magnitude has been a long and difficult road, but we have pushed on, knowing that we have the strong support of local residents and government and business leaders throughout Maine.
In recent months, Gov. Baldacci and Sen. Susan Collins, in particular, have been especially forceful with Canadian officials in asserting the right of all ships — including LNG ships — to transit the international waters of Passamaquoddy Bay to reach Maine ports, and we appreciate their efforts.
All we have asked for is a fair and transparent review of our project based on its merits. That is what we have received from U.S. authorities. In January, we received a favorable waterway report from the U.S. Coast Guard, which said “the Passamaquoddy Bay Waterway is suitable for the type and frequency of marine traffic associated with this proposed project.”
That was followed in May by a draft environmental impact statement from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, or FERC, the lead permitting authority, which said that the environmental impacts of our project would be “reduced to less-than-significant levels with the implementation of the applicants’ proposed mitigation measures and the additional measures we recommend.”
But despite the fact that our project is receiving intense scrutiny from federal regulators — much greater than a similar project would receive in Canada — Canadian politicians just continue to say “no way.” Acting like petulant children, they aren’t about to let facts, reason, precedent or even international law get in their way.
New Brunswick Premier Graham tells FERC that our project would negatively affect New Brunswick’s environment, its tourism and its environmental-based economy, as well as its residents’ safety and security (but apparently their industrial ports, nuclear power plants and oil refineries are just fine.)
Even the Canadian ambassador to the U.S. has gotten into the act, telling FERC that Canada opposes the project because of concerns about “navigational safety, environmental and other impacts.”
Well, the Coast Guard already has addressed navigational safety, not to mention the fact that hundreds of large ships safely transit these waters each year to get to Eastport and the Port of Bayside in New Brunswick. FERC certainly is addressing the environmental issues, as will the Maine Board of Environmental Protection.
Honestly, if all of these Canadian politicians were really concerned about navigation, public safety and the environment, there would be no rock quarry or shipping at Bayside, no nuclear power plant a short distance from the Maine border at Point Lepreau, no oil refinery in Saint John.
What they really are concerned about is protecting New Brunswick’s economic interests, because what they really want is a one-way energy highway through Maine that only benefits Canada.
Thankfully, Maine’s leaders are standing up to the shameless hypocrisy coming from New Brunswick and the Canadian federal government, and all Maine people should support them. If New Brunswick wants a real partner, great. If it just wants to walk all over Maine on its way to lucrative U.S. energy markets, let them find another route.
Dean Girdis is the founder and president of Downeast LNG in Robbinston.


Here's some of the comments. Go here to read everything.

If the US would sign the International Law of the Sea Treaty, which has been ratified by 158 countries, including Canada, the US could effectively sue Canada under international law. The treaty has been consistently opposed by a number of outspoken Members of Congress, Senator Imhofe most prominently among them, so suit under that Treaty isn't currently an option. The Obama administration has pledged to seek congressional approval of the Treaty.
It would be horrible for Mainers to get our electricity from Canada cheaper . We pay 40% more than the rest of the country now. How does this affect business? We are told we need jobs. But the jobs are short term construction. Business is driven out by the corrupt policies of ME state govt.

ME has an excess of power supply-can produce over 3200 megawatts, but uses only 900 on an average day.Gov Baldaci and ME state govt says we have to get away from foreign oil. Iberdrola out of Spain is funded by Abu Dhabi Energy. They own Central Maine Electric and Maine Public Gas.

Gov Baldaci says we need clean energy and Stetson Mt wind farm is online. But they aren't. There is a bottleneck in Orrington. The power cannot go any further.Stetson II is being built by tax payer money. They have to have the 1.4 billion dollars worth of transmission lines to sell power to Mass.How does this help US. Our power bills go up.A wind farm employs only a few people...and they are from out of state.

Maine has an excess of power supply-can produce over 3200 megawatts, but uses only 900 on an average day.

We need A JUSTICE DEPT. INVESTIGATION INTO ME ENERGY POLICIES AND LAWS. Don't think all the permitting for First Wind when they have no money is exactly legal. The Rollins Project is under litigation, First Wind is broke and still they are blasting and putting in roads. Stetson Mt wind farm is not online but they are selling carbon credits. Kibby wind farm built by TransCanada is not online but they can't sell carbon credits. Different laws for First Wind. Forget the Attorney General's office ...they say it is not their concern.

When are our newspapers going to print the truth? When will they stop transcribing for First Wind and ME state govt.
Gov Baldacci got in a twit when he found out that the west was ahead on wind farms and would be selling power to the east. How does that coincide with we need wind farms for clean energy and to get away from foreign oil? Sounds more like good 'ol boys taking care of each other.

FERC just decreed that the power plants have to pay for the transmission lines in the WEST. Not rate payers. Up front money. Fixed that problem.

Then Gov. Baldacci got all concerny because Canada might sell energy cheaper...kinda' put First Wind , his best buds, out of business.How does that coincide with we need wind farms for clean energy and to get away from foreign oil?

Not to worry , in a few days , it will be announced Canada can't sell to NY and New England. Things just get fixed like that. BDN will report GREAT. We are stuck with corrupt energy policy and high prices. Not in those words. Just look at this editorial. They 'll figure it out to make it look like the good and decent thing to do..Pay high prices.High prices will go even higher ...but don't worry. It's just the right thing to do.
New Brunswick cares about tourism and the environment they don't want the LNG facility . That is just reprehensible. The facility would not give ME jobs. It woud be a few for highly skilled people. Our Coast Guard has had major reservations about safety issues. This is the most useless editorial I have ever read.

Susan Collins voted with bush to fund 2 wars ..without giving a good reason.
Bankrupted the treasury and destroy the constitution. So if she wants the LNG facility , it must be something.
ANYONE who has regular contact with Canadians and the citizens of New Brunswick in particular knows how ludicrous this contention is. Canada has regularly been used as a "doormat" by the USA and they respond with friendship. I much prefer them as neighbors, rather than Mr. Girdis. The "NO LNG" sign remains at the foot of this citizen's Washington County driveway.
What's so wrong with getting energy from Canada? It's a commodity. And they're probably not going to put us over a barrel for supporting Israel.
I 200% agree with Dean Girdis on this issue. We voted for and passed LNG developement in Calais, Robbinston and Perry. If we allow the Canadians to supply our energy needs, we deserve high prices.

First of all I must correct arrogantdan when He/she says we voted and passed LNG in Calais, Robbinston, and Perry. Perry in fact voted against the LNG facility that was proposed for our town. They now have folded their tent and slunk off in the night. As to the Op-Ed comments made by Girdis he should quit whining. He is blaming Canada for all the bad choices his company made when they came here in the first place. His piece is so full of mistakes it would take more time than I have to point them out, so let it suffice to say that Canada is not his biggest problem. He chose an unworkable location ;to begin with, and now the natural gas market has collapsed leaving him and his investors high and dry. Sorry Dean. You need to go back to Washington DC, and since Baldacci is soon to be out of work - you can take him with you.
Actually Dean stays on message and it's getting really annoying since we uncooperative Canadians are more than fed up with being walked over, polluted, denigrated, and spat upon by our enighbours. Actually, it's the citizens of the Quoddy area (Americans AND Canadians) that are opposing the LNG developments in Passamaquoddy and OUR politicians are supporting OUR rights. It has NOTHING to do with Irving or LNG in the right place. We make 1/2 to 1 billion dollar each year from sustainable industries that depend on the environment here and we are not giving that up for some carpetbagger from Washington, DC or anywhere else for that matter.

Put a sock in it Dean and move on like a good little fellow!

PS. If Quebec Hydra (sorry Hydro) takes out NB Power, look out. They will skin you alive as soon as look at you ... they have real terrorists in that province. Check it out on
Meanwhile the Portland Oil pipeline which for decades send crude to Montreal to be refined into fuel oil, gasoline and other products; to be resold back to the U.S., is getting ready to flow in reverse delivering Alberta shale oil to Portland to be shipped to other regions of the U.S.

Like it or not; the U.S. has benefited from inexpensive energy from Canada; and Maine has simply been the route of least resistance.

Now it's cheap power; and AUGUSTAcrats who think that Maine can beat Mass. and Nova Scotia in producing off shore wind power and near shore tidal power. Ain't gonna happen, esp. since Maine produced Wind Power will cost 2-3x as much as cheap hydro from New Brunswick and Quebec.

My solution has been to welcome them and assess a tariff on every volt, gal. of crude or other energy unit as it passes through Maine and down the Atlantic seaboard.

It's a lot cheaper that way and we make a lot more money.
Stetson Mt , Stetson II and Kibby can just rot into the ground. The transmission lines are not going to be built to ruin ME and send power to Mass. NY is stopping the madness with legislation. Who knows . our lawmakers might read the tea leaves and want to stay in office.
Has the time come for the Bangor Daily News to print the truth?
More sour grapes from Dean Girdis. His project is doomed.

Canada's support would not have saved it, although by opposing the project they helped point out some of its many fatal flaws.

Ultimately the market and new technology pulled the rug out from under the three LNG projects proposed for the Bay (and of course their poor choice for siting them). Such is the fate that so many big talking speculators face when they guess wrong. And then they blame everyone else for their failure.
People from away like to point out how economically depressed Washington county is. We have an opportunity to have LNG facilities and what ever else that spin off from them. I think it would be nice to be able to work for good money and have stable, steady jobs for people of this area. When the pipeline was built to carry Canadian LNG the locals welcomed it with open arms, stores were bustling with activity, heck the contractors even bought local baseball teams uniforms. We need these jobs and I hope the LNG developers dont give up on us and go elsewhere because of all the negativity towards their projects. I want to personally thank Dean Girdis for giving this area a ray of hope.

Photo Credit: TJ

Bay of Fundy Tidal Energy Industry Facing Do Or Die Project

Get the pictures and subscribe at:

Tidal energy pioneers will take a critical first step toward harnessing the powerful tides of the Bay of Fundy next week in a do-or-die trial for the nascent industry.

Tidal engineers have yet to prove electricity can be harnessed reliably and cost-effectively from the ocean’s tides. However the potential is high. The concentrated and predictable nature of tides makes the energy they produce less expensive than solar or wind.

The Bay of Fundy's Minas Passage will be the site of a critical tidal energy test starting next week.

Testing in this most dramatic Bay of Fundy environment will be crucial. Tides in the bay run higher than anywhere in the world – typically 55 feet – and storms are frequent.

According to Roger Bedard, ocean energy leader at the Electric Power Research Institute, “if this project is not successful, it would be a major blow to the industry and the industry may not survive.” An EPRI study paved the path for the Bay of Fundy effort to begin.

More ...

Monday, November 2, 2009

Will Maine Protectionism impact the Fundy Lobster Fishery?

Get the pictures and subscribe at:

Linda Bean's fast food lobster roll houses are getting some negative reviews in the places they have opened - as overpriced and not that good. Meanwhile, not all Maine lobster dealers agree with her crusade against Canadian lobsters. Her divisive marketing may end up doing more damage to the industry than good - because once you start tearing down a product better than your own, - and in the market Canadian hardshell lobsters always get preference over the softshell ones from Maine - you force customers to question everything. The fact is that divorcing Maine and Canada would destroy much of the value of Maine's lobster industry - but a wealthy crusading newcomer like Bean is more ideological than practical in her approach to the problem. 

Linda Beans website:

Thanks Vivian

Bay of Fundy Turbines will produce "Red Energy" not "Green Energy" - Dadswell

From the Working Waterfront. Read the entire article here:

Tidal power also has to prove what most have assumed: that devices will have no discernable effect on the environment or fish populations. Mr. Sauer says video monitoring during the year-long testing of their prototype indicated marine life never attempted to enter the turbines. "Fish can sense a sold object ahead and appear to swim around it," he says.
Not everyone is convinced, least of all Mike Dadswell, a professor of biology at Acadia University in Wolfville, Nova Scotia, which is located near the Minas Basin test area. In July he wrote Nova Scotia officials that the test project there had the potential to kill large numbers of fish that migrate to the head of the Bay of Fundy. "Tidal energy will not be ‘Green Energy" but rather ‘Red Energy' from the blood of its victims," he wrote.

"It's literally impossible to turn a blade in the water and not kill, maim, or harm some fish," says Dadswell, who has conducted extensive monitoring of fish kills at an old-fashioned dam-based tidal power plant at Annapolis Royal, Nova Scotia. At that 25-year old facility, sturgeon, herring and other fish wishing to travel to and from the Annapolis River are forced to swim through concrete tubes and the spinning generator blades, which kill by impact and pressure changes.
He says the Minas Basin turbines operate on the same physical principles and will also kill many of the fish that swim through them. If 200 to 300 devices are eventually deployed as supporters hope, the damage could be devastating to fisheries throughout the Bay of Fundy.  "The fish aren't forced to go through the turbine there, so it all comes down to fish behavior, whether fish approaching these machines will know to turn away," he says. Proponents say Dadswell's conclusions drawn from an old dam-based system don't apply to the new devices, which fish are free to swim around. "With these devices there's no sucking and none of that-the physics are totally different than at Annapolis Royal," says Sauer. "You have a little itty-bitty piece of equipment in a huge area of water with no physical pressure pulling things into it."

Saturday, October 31, 2009

What's happening with the Downeast LNG FERC Application?


FERC > FERC LNG Project Review Process > eLibrary Dockets > Docket Numbers — Prefiling & Formal Filing > Formal Filing Docket Comment Submissions > Downeast LNG — CP07-52 > 2009 > October
Oct 30
  • Downeast LNG — Deficiency Letter/Data Response. Filing contains calculations of the Thermal Hazard around the proposed LNG terminal — data that was due 2009 July 6Even this filing does not contain all of the Thermal Hazard data requested by FERC.
    As of this filing, DOWNEAST LNG IS NOW 115 DAYS LATE providing information FERC requested by the 2009 July 6 Draft EIS Comment deadline. DeLNG knew it could not meet FERC's July 6 deadline, but objected to Save Passamaquoddy Bay's request for a 90-day deadline extension. DeLNG has already delayed the process by more time than requested by Save Passamaquoddy Bay, and DeLNG still has not provided all of the data requested by FERC.
  • Downeast LNG — Deficiency Letter/Data ResponsePrivileged and Confidential Appendix D of the above filing.

Save Passamaquoddy Bay

Thursday, October 22, 2009

NOT SO "Innocent Passage"

Get the pictures and subscribe at:

Our american Friends love to talk about "innocent Passage" and their right to pass through Canada's inland waters at Head Harbour Passage to reach their proposed LNG terminals in Passamaquoddy Bay..

I thought you all might be interested in the good word from the UN. So much for the "innocent" rights of our American friends.

Here it is:

Updated 12 February 2009

Status of the Convention and its implementing Agreements

Link to the Oceans and Law of the Sea: Status of the Convention and the implementing agreements
In its resolutions on oceans and the law of the sea, the General Assembly continuously stresses the importance of increasing the number of States parties to the Convention and the Agreement relating to the implementation of Part XI of the Convention in order to achieve the goal of universal participation. The General Assembly also reiterates its call upon all States that had not done so to become parties to these instruments.
The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea was open for signature on 10 December 1982 and entered into force on 16 November 1994. Out of 159 original UNCLOS signatories, 29 have yet to ratify. From among 38 States that did not sign UNCLOS or were not independent States at the time of its opening for signature, 17 have acceded or succeeded to it. Certain coastal States have not yet expressed their consent to be bound by the Convention. These were,  as at 30 September 2005: five in the African region (Republic of the Congo, Eritrea, Liberia, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya and Morocco); 10 in Asia (Cambodia, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Israel, Niue, Syrian Arab Republic, Thailand, Timor-Leste, Turkey and United Arab Emirates), one in North America (United States of America) and six in Latin America and the Caribbean (Colombia, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Peru and Venezuela). It appears, however, that in certain States non-parties, internal procedures are under way to enable them to become parties to UNCLOS. Developing landlocked States in Africa and Central Asia should also ratify or accede to UNCLOS, as Part X of UNCLOS dealing with access to and from the sea and freedom of transit provides the basic legal framework for the negotiation of modalities of such access and transit.

The Agreement relating to the implementation of Part XI of the Convention was adopted on 28 July 1994 (General Assembly resolution 48/263) and entered into force on 28 July 1996. The Agreement is to be interpreted and applied together with the Convention as a single instrument, and in the event of any inconsistency between the Agreement and Part XI of the Convention, the provisions of the Agreement shall prevail. After 28 July 1994, any ratification of or accession to the Convention represents consent to be bound by the Agreement as well. Furthermore, no State or entity can establish its consent to be bound by the Agreement unless it has previously established its consent to be bound by the Convention or unless it establishes such consent to be bound by the Agreement and the Convention at the same time.

Not all States parties to the Convention are parties to the Agreement relating to the implementation of Part XI. A number of States which became States parties to the Convention prior to the adoption of the Agreement on Part XI have yet to express their consent to be bound by the Agreement (see the table).These States should take the necessary steps in order to accede to that Agreement and thus to put their participation in the work of the International Seabed Authority on a sound legal footing.

The Agreement for the implementation of the provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 10 December 1982 relating to the conservation and management of straddling fish stocks and highly migratory fish stocks (the 1995 Agreement on Fish Stocks) was adopted on 4 August 1995 by the United Nations Conference on Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks. Unlike the Agreement relating to the implementation of Part XI of the Convention, there is no direct linkage between the 1995 Agreement on Fish Stocks and the Convention with respect to establishing the consent to be bound.

The Agreement was opened for signature until 4 December 1996 and received a total of 59 signatures.  The Agreement entered into force on 11 December 2001, 30 days after the date of deposit of the thirtieth instrument of ratification or accession. Although the Agreement provides, in its article 41, for the possibility of its provisional application, no State or entity has notified the depositary of its wish to do so.


If you are interested in more on existing recent boundary treaties between Canada and USA as related to the UN and UNCLOs, these might prove to be a fun read. Enjoy!!

 Treaty to submit to binding dispute settlement the delimitation of the maritime boundary in the Gulf of Maine area, 29 March 1979
 Special Agreement between the Government of Canada and the Government of the United States of America to submit to a Chamber of the International Court of Justice the delimitation of the maritime boundary in the Gulf of Maine area, 29 March 1979
 Case concerning Delimitation of the Maritime Boundary in the Gulf of Maine Area (Canada/United States of America) International Court of Justice, 12 October 1984

Tuesday, October 20, 2009

Bay of Fundy's Quoddy NIMBYs are BAD, BAD, BAD!

Get the pictures and subscribe at:

I'm sure that many of you folks who have been trying to preserve your jobs, homes, and way of life in the Bay of Fundy's Quoddy Region will be delighted to hear how unreasonable you all are according to spin-doctor  Al Maiorino!

October 8, 2009 


Beyond the Backyard -- The NIMBY of Today

by Al Maiorino, Public Strategy Group Inc. 
"Not in my backyard," or NIMBY, is a term used to describe a person or a group of people who strongly oppose new development in their communities. Whether it's a new housing complex, retail development, casino or power plant, NIMBYs – as they are commonly referred to – will actively organize to communicate their opposition to a local project in an effort to curb development.

These days, the “backyard” in NIMBY has grown so vastly that residents often oppose airplane flight paths, offshore wind and liquefied natural gas terminals.

More often it seems that NIMBY activists are simply in it to win it. They speak out, without taking the time to educate themselves with accurate information pertaining to the development at hand. While NIMBY groups may protest loud and proud, their motives often stem from misinformation and poor communication between project representatives and the community.

You can read the entire article here ... and it will ring bells believe me!!!

Friday, October 16, 2009

"Listen up" Governor Baldacii - Passamaquoddy Bay is a coastal estuary.

Seems New England Governors will commit themselves to "safeguard coastal and estuarine lands". If this is the case, why did Governor Baldacii's advisors not tell him that the proposed sites of the LNG terminals in Passamaquoddy Bay are on "coastal and estuarine land". I know this, every citizen of Quoddy knows this, the IJC knows this, the Government of Canada knows this, numerous state and federal agencies know this ... it's no secret. Perhaps you can have it two ways at the same time? Kind of a bipolar government?

My thoughts tonight.

Thanks Vivian


"A Lasting Legacy", the just-released recommendations of the "Report of the Blue Ribbon Commission on Land Conservation" ordered by the New England Governors Conference (NEGC) and accepted by them at their Sept. 15 meeting in New Brunswick. 

The Commission ... recommends five compelling goals for regional collaboration across New England, a set of policy priorities upon which to build a regional conservation strategy. These are:
1. Keep Forests as Forests,
2. Keep Farmlands in Farming,
3. Connect People to the Outdoors,
4. Protect Wildlife Habitat, and
5. Safeguard Coastal and Estuarine Lands.

The full "
Report of the NEGC Commission on Land Conservation" (5 MB) can be downloaded from the N.E. Governors' Conference website:

Get the pictures and subscribe at:
Photo Credit: Art MacKay 
Note: Proposed Calais LNG site is up the estuary near Devil's Head

Upcoming conference on Maine Maritime Boundary Delimitation - Is anyone from Quoddy participating?

Get the pictures and subscribe at:

The following is coming up November 13 - 14,  2009: "Conference on the Gulf of Maine Maritime Boundary. Delimitation: Law, Science and Policy of Marine Transboundary Management", Portland, Maine - for information, email

It's important that representatives from the Quoddy community consider direct involvement in issues that will affect them directly. Boundary law has enormous implications for Canadians as outlined in this article which defines other disputed areas as follows:

At least part of the Canadian economy is tied to the people who make a living from the resources of the sea, be they fishermen or oil drillers. These resources need protection from foreign exploiters; thus, the need for national jurisdictions. But with national jurisdictional claims, comes the overlap with claims of other nations. For Canada, these overlaps occur:

· off the mouth of Juan de Fuca Strait;
· in, and seaward of, Dixon Entrance on the Pacific Coast;
· near Machias Seal Island on the Atlantic coast;
· in the Beaufort and Lincoln Seas in the Arctic.

Special problems occur because of the already negotiated or arbitrated boundaries in Baffin Bay and Nares Strait and in the Gulf of Maine. The ownership of two islands, Machias Seal and Hans Island in Kennedy Channel is still disputed.

Winner of the I Love Quoddy Wild Contest to receive new book about Quoddy - Enter today!

Get the pictures and subscribe at:

Send your spookiest photo to artmackay.ilqw @ and you could win this book which covers the 15,000 years from Laurentide glacier to the issues today. Learn about Quoddy's beauty, diversity, eco-economy, people, history, and current challenges. A unique and important new publication to be issued in time for Christmas.

Time to vote for the Bay of Fundy again! Do it now, it's quick and easy!

Get the pictures and subscribe at:

The third phase of the New7Wonders of Nature is now underway, and you can vote on your choice of seven natural wonders from the selection of 28 Official Finalist Candidates. If you cast your vote during the nominee phases, you can vote again now during this finalist phase. 

Vote now

Thursday, October 15, 2009

No such thing as free energy

Art MacKay sent you the following article

Tidal Power - the thin edge of the wedge

No such thing as free energy

Article online since October 14th 2009
By Heather Killen Spectator Not everyone is pleased the province is moving forward to test tidal power turbines in the Bay of Fundy. The Department of Environment recently announced a new tidal power demonstration project to test underwater turbines in hopes of converting......

@ All rights reserved Media Transcontinental

Wednesday, October 14, 2009

Why we won't save the world.

Get the pictures and subscribe at:

As General Electric — sometimes viewed as a US national champion despite the fact that 53% of its assets reside elsewhere — told Congress this week
Such measures would be counterproductive from the point of view of combating climate change because they would deter innovation and technology deployment.  In addition, they would be severely detrimental to US export interests … Companies will be careful to avoid licensing technology or even selling products to customers in countries where those customers could reverse engineer, take and use the intellectual property rights.
 Read the entire article:

Monday, October 12, 2009

"Screw Canada" comment poll gets startling results.

Our poll asked for your response to the Bangor Daily News comment "screw Canada".

3 out of 5 respondents chose "Huh?" indicating they couldn't figure out how you could do this act in the first place, while 2 out of 5 respondents indicated that they couldn't figure out why you would wish to do this act in the first place ... with or without a screwdriver!

This poll is accurate 5 times out of 5, 100% of the time, except on Halloween.

Wow ... we'll have to do this again some time!!

Art, Decibel Research

If I was a paranoid, Baldacii's wish to dominate Canadian water might be ...

Never has this process (manipulation of the population) been as blatant and overt as in recent years when the time has come for America to legitimize the idea of global domination. A Department of Defense report titled Joint Vision 2020 calls for the US military to be capable of "full spectrum dominance" of the entire planet. That means total domination and control of all land, sea, air, space and information.
For Columbus Day, read the full article and see if your neck hairs stand up straight like mine did. Enjoy.


Thanks Vivian

Saturday, October 10, 2009

For the Record - Approaches to Canaport LNG compared to approaches to proposed Passamaquoddy LNG terminals

Get the pictures and subscribe at:

Proponents of LNG in Passamaquoddy Bay continue to compare these developments with Canaport LNG in Saint John. Hopefully, the following will demonstrate the difference.


LNG at Saint John vs LNG at Passamaquoddy Bay

We believe that Passamaquoddy Bay is the wrong place for LNG facilities. We have taken no position on LNG at other locations. However, we keep hearing criticism from folks who can't see any difference between LNG at Saint John Harbour and LNG in Passamaquoddy Bay. Apart from the richness of the Quoddy Region and the financial losses that will occur, the approaches are so different that it is clear that these critics have not bothered to do a little reseach.

Access to Saint John Harbour is characterized by a direct, safe, unobstructed route from the Outer Bay of Fundy to the Harbour. Traffic lanes have been moved to avoid principal Right Whale areas. The Harbour has been active since the City was founded and has modern navigation, security, and safety systems in place.

Approaches to Saint John Harbour
(Click image for full sized view)

In contrast, the route to Passamaquoddy Bay passes through a Right Whale Sanctuary, vital fishing and aquaculture grounds, and the primary tourist area for the Bay of Fundy (see the slide show at It follows a difficult, narrow, and dangerous passage through upwellings, extreme currents, the Old Sow Whirlpool, and into Passamaquoddy Bay, a vital area for tourism, endangered species, research, education and the home of numerous historic and protected sites including St. Croix island an international historic site and F.D. Roosevelt's summer home and the park at Campobello. There are very limited navigation, security, and safety systems in place.

Additionally, the proposed terminals are all sited along the Canada and US Border, increasing security risks in an area which should act as a buffer zone. This is not an area where foreign ships and crews should be passing between our two countries under current circumstances.

A quick look at the Google aerials should be adequate to satisfy the most difficult critic.

Approaches to Passamaquoddy Bay
(Click image for full sized view)

Product Surge at Canaport LNG causes huge flare and evacuation.

Ahh, just the kind of tension we need down here in Passamaquoddy Bay. Excitement, danger, fear....!!! I actually saw this today on my way to SJ ... impressive to say the least.



Flare problems force evacuation of LNG site
Last Updated: Saturday, October 10, 2009 | 8:08 PM AT Comments6Recommend7
CBC News

Saint John fire Chief Rob Simonds says there was a problem with the flaring system. (CBC)Saint John fire Chief Rob Simonds says there was a problem with the flaring system. (CBC) The Canaport liquefied natural gas terminal in east Saint John was evacuated Saturday at about 12:30 p.m. AT.

Emergency crews responded to a report of a fire at the terminal, located on Red Head Road.

Fire Chief Rob Simonds said there was a problem with the flaring system used to burn off secondary gases.

The flame was three times larger than its normal size and was visible from uptown Saint John, Simonds said.

"There was a very large volume of fire coming out of the flaring system, which is an indication that there was a surge of product going through that."

Workers at the scene told CBC News the flare appeared to have gotten out of control and it created a great deal of heat. They were forced off the job for about an hour.

No one was injured.

Some of the workers were ordered out of the Canaport LNG terminal Saturday. (CBC)Some of the workers were ordered out of the Canaport LNG terminal Saturday. (CBC) "The notification thresholds and protocols that have been put in place have worked seamlessly," said Simonds.

Workers cut back the fuel supply to the flare and the plant's warning system alerted emergency responders.

Four fire trucks and several police cars responded to the problem. One fire truck was expected to remain there until the flare tower cooled and ensure none of the sensors that detect emergency situations were damaged, the chief said.

Earlier in the day, hundreds of laid-off tradespeople gathered to protest being replaced by out-of-province workers at the liquefied natural gas terminal project.

Most of the protesters are union members who were laid off after building the first two enormous containment tanks at the Irving-Repsol owned terminal.

Get the pictures and subscribe at:

Photo Credit: CBC NB

Governor Baldacci declares Maine's right to transit Candian waters in the Bay of Fundy ... and where else in Canada?

Get the pictures and subscribe at:

The LNG tanker route at Head Harbour Passage. Brian Flynn photo.

Maine must not cede rights to maritime transit

By John E. Baldacci
Special to the BDN

There is much that binds Maine and New Brunswick together. We have a long and shared history, common borders and many joint economic opportunities. During my term as governor, I have worked hard to increase cross-border cooperation on a number of issues critical to both sides.

And we have made great progress by recognizing that our region is stronger when New England and eastern Canada are able to work together.

But these strong relations do not guarantee that we will agree on all issues.

Right now, Maine and the United States are in a heated dispute with Canada and New Brunswick over shipping in Passamaquoddy Bay, the St. Croix River and through Head Harbor Passage.

Passamaquoddy Bay and the St. Croix River are boundary waters between the United States and Canada.

According to international law, treaties between the U.S. and Canada and current practice, ships headed to port in Maine have as much right to use the passage as ships headed to Canada. The U.S. State Department has taken a strong and consistent position that all vessels enjoy a nonsuspendable right of innocent passage into and out of Passamaquoddy Bay through Head Harbor Passage. This is guaranteed by the International Law of the Sea Convention.

Canada disagrees and has asserted, without evidence, that the river and bay are “internal” Canadian waters, and commerce there can be controlled and regulated by Ottawa.

In the simplest language possible, that’s wrong.

Ships heading for Maine and the United States and Canada have the right to travel up the river, as they do now.

The issue of right of passage has been tied up with two current proposals to develop liquid natural gas terminals in Maine. Canada, which has an LNG terminal of its own, is attempting to block the developments on our side of the border.

While I support the development of LNG facilities in Maine as long as they meet all environmental and safety requirements and have the support of the host communities, the issues along the St. Croix, Head Harbor Passage and Passamaquoddy Bay go much deeper than these two proposed projects.

Today, Canada and New Brunswick have made the decision that it is in their best interest to attempt to block LNG tankers from reaching port in the United States.

Tomorrow, the decision could be made that other types of commercial traffic should be blocked. As Maine works to develop and grow exports, there is great potential for wood pulp, biofuels, wood chips and any number of other products to be shipped down the St. Croix to markets around the world.

Annually, more than 100 deep draft cargo ships visit the ports of Eastport in the U.S. and Bayside in Canada already, and the U.S. Coast Guard uses the waterway to reach the ocean. If Canada’s claim is left unchallenged, that traffic will also be left to the discretion of Ottawa.

Whether a person supports LNG in Calais or Robbinston, this question is much larger.

It is not appropriate for the Canadian government to hold control over commerce in Maine and the United States.

As to the specifics of the LNG proposals, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission has a process in place to judge whether the locations are appropriate, and New Brunswick is rightly participating in that process as are supporters and opponents of the developments.

FERC is the best venue for the issue of LNG terminal location to be resolved.

There are legitimate concerns about the projects, and opponents should have the right and the opportunity to be heard. Questions have been raised about the safety of LNG tankers in Head Harbor Passage, Western Passage and Passamaquoddy Bay. According to the United States Coast Guard, which studied the issue, those areas are suitable for tanker traffic. In addition, the communities in Calais and Robbinston have supported the projects.

The proposals deserve a chance to be judged on their merits, not on the disposition of the Canadian government.

I have met with the Obama administration and with the U.S. State Department, and both have reiterated their support for the right of innocent passage through Head Harbor Passage.

Whether LNG terminals are developed in Washington County or not, we cannot cede control of commerce in Maine to another country, no matter how well we are able to cooperate on other issues.

John E. Baldacci is the governor of Maine.

11 comments on this item
Yes ole great baldi, but it seems to me while our rights are being protected dealing with Canada, that maybe we could be moving forward in finding another more suitible place for the dang tankers to off load. I really don`t know if we need one since they are already a short distance north and south of us . But I will respect the opinions of others that are more in the know.
If Canada prevails on this matter, we should demand an accounting of what the ships that go to Bay Side terminal in New Brunswick are carrying. Are they carrying hazerdous materials that could lead to a natural disaster? Endangering the ecological balance of Passamoquody Bay?

What if the US Navy decided to bring Nuclear Submarines to Eastport? What could or would Canada do to stop their passage?
Governor Baldacci and the US Department of State ignore the ongoing US refusal to ratify membership to the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). As UNCLOS makes perfectly clear, sovereigns must have agreed to the terms of (ratified) the treaty in order to enjoy its benefits. Without ratification, the US has no recourse, as even admitted in the Bangor Daily News by US Coast Guard attorney CAPT Charles Michel, Chief, Office of Maritime and International Law.

The Governor's support for LNG, so long as host communities support the project, contradicts his own premise, since the vast majority of people -- in the thousands, as opposed to the fewer than 300 who have voted in favor of the two projects -- in the Passamaquoddy Bay community oppose these projects.

Additionally, Gov. Baldacci's support contradicts his own Energy Plan. His plan requires a year-long "dialogue" on LNG to determine if it is a good fit for Maine -- a process that has not yet begun.

The Governor's attempt to assert Canada has an agenda other than safety of its citizens and environment is unfounded and unsubstantiated. Innocent passage is the issue, as even the world LNG industry indicates. The Society of International Gas Tanker and Terminal Operators (SIGTTO), representing virtually the entire world LNG industry, has published best practices for LNG terminal siting. LNG terminals in Passamaquoddy Bay cannot be made to fit those best practices. Canada's prohibition is in perfect agreement with the industry on this matter. The US, on the other hand, brushes aside those best practices, rationalizing that they are not law.

Canada voiced its prohibition of these projects in 2007. The real puzzle is why Governor Baldacci and the LNG developers refuse to relocate these projects in industry-compliant locations instead of using a flawed argument to pick an unnecessary and winless fight.
I have been informed by the US Coast Guard they are currently investigating the issue of ammonium nitrate shipments to Bayside, NB. For the same reason as Canada's ban on LNG transits into Passamaquoddy Bay, the US would be within its authority to ban ammonium nitrate transits in US waters.
"Canaport LNG, a partnership between Irving Oil (25%) and Repsol YPF (75%), is constructing a state-of-the-art LNG receiving and regasification terminal in Saint John, New Brunswick that will begin operations in late 2008. It will be the first LNG regasification plant in Canada, sending out natural gas to both Canadian and American Markets. The LNG have a send-out capacity, or the ability to distribute via pipeline, 1 billion cubic feet (28 million cubic meters) of natural gas a day after it has been regasified from its liquid state.[8]...",_New_Brunswick

Is Canada possibly trying to protect its economic interests under the guise of environmental concerns, or are there genuine (excessive) environmental risks/concerns in Maine's proposal?
Canada and New Brunswick have both repeatedly stated they do not oppose LNG development in Maine. They simply oppose LNG in Passamaquoddy Bay, due to it being an unsafe fit.
Can the validity of their concerns be accurately and non-subjectively assessed?
The LNG industry terminal siting best practices indicate...
• long, winding, inland waterways, with high tides and fast currents;
• with existing conflicting uses; and
• >>> where LNG vapors from a release could affect civilian populations <<<
...are unfit for LNG facilities.

The Passamaquoddy Bay proposals would require thousands of civilians in New Brunswick and Maine be subjected to LNG ships' Federally-defined 2.2-mile-radius Hazard Zones. There is no question that Passamaquoddy Bay does not conform to LNG industry best practices.
Note that Canaport LNG is in a rural industrial area, adjacent to an oil refinery, 5 miles across the water from Saint John, NB -- well outside US Federal Government-defined Hazard Zones.
Thanks for the information.
Please go to .The first article by Cliff Goudy of MIT shows how ridiculous the "innocent passage" position really is. Two google map representations show the difference between the approaches to Saint John and the approaches to Robbinston and Red Head in Passamaquoddy Bay via Head Harbour Passage. Huge difference wouldn't you say?

Also, the area supports a long-time sustainable industry based on tourism, fisheries, aquaculture, education, research, etc. that brings in between a half billion and one billion dollars each year. These businesses will be seriously disrupted by the exclusion zone that will exist around LNG tankers (2 miles ahead, one mile behind, and 1000 yard on each side - underway, at port, or during layover as I recall). These resource-based industries depend on an ecosystem that supports the highest biodiversity on the Atlantic coast of Canada, if not north of Cape Cod. This has been proven and substantiated scientifically. The reports are on the record at FERC.

Finally, the citizens of Quoddy, both Canadian and American, are the ones that wish to protect their homeland and the thousands of jobs that depend on this unique environment. It really has nothing to do with politics or Irving other than the Prime Minister, Premier and others have agreed to support our position in this serious matter. We pitched them and they are standing up for their electorate and Canada's rights.

To learn more about about why this place is so special, go to to see a presentation that was prepared over 2 years ago but is still valid today. Also shows the importance of Head Harbour Passage to whales, birds, fish, and humans right now. Several dozen endangered species, including the North Atlantic right whale, finback, and Harbour Porpoise, are in our trust. You will be astounded by the life that has been reported in Head Harbour Passage and vicinity this summer.

All of the scientific publications supporting these statements are in the public domain. It is sad that the Governor and others in Maine have not taken the time to learn for themselves how important Head Harbour Passage, West Isles, and Cobscook Bay really are. What's worse is the demonization of those of us here who are simply trying to protect our homes, jobs, and the environment that supports them ... for me that includes many generations from both sides of the border.

Finally, the contention that Head Harbour Passage is internal Canadian waters is supported by law, treaty, and definition. It's all in the documents folks. But, I admit it really does take patience and time to wade through to find the answer. It's really much easier to toss of words like "innocent passage", "NIMBY" and to use threats and insults.

Oh, by the way, if the Americans that control the Bayside port want to pack up and go home., that's okay by me ... and most of the citizens over here as well! What they have done and wish to do to our coast is and will remain, a moral sin and represents everything that you can expect from the LNG developments in Passamaquoddy Bay ... a future of destruction.