Thursday, October 22, 2009

NOT SO "Innocent Passage"

Get the pictures and subscribe at: http://fundytides.blogspot.com

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

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:
http://www.negc.org/documents/2009/Conservation.pdf


Get the pictures and subscribe at: http://fundytides.blogspot.com
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: http://fundytides.blogspot.com


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 lauri.macdougall@dal.ca.


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: http://fundytides.blogspot.com

Send your spookiest photo to artmackay.ilqw @ blogger.com 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.



Saturday, October 10, 2009

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.

Art

*************************


http://www.cbc.ca/canada/new-brunswick/story/2009/10/10/nb-lng-evacuation.html


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: http://fundytides.blogspot.com

Photo Credit: CBC NB

LNG - 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: http://fundytides.blogspot.com



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
r
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]..."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_John,_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 www.bayoffundy.ca/LNG/ .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 www.bayoffundy.ca/LNG/slideshow to see a presentation that was prepared over 2 years ago but is still valid today. Also ilovequoddywild.blogspot.com 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.

Friday, October 9, 2009

BDN Apologizes for "Screw Canada" Comment


Actually, perhaps you too are amazed by the ignorant comments made on other news sites including those of Canadian mainstream broadcasters and publishers. 

It boggles my mind that such ignorant individuals actually read the news!!!  But then Rush Limbaugh is literate in a perverse sort of way.

My opinion on this affair.  Art

Here's email re. the response from BDN to SPB - USA.
*************************************

Save Passamaquoddy Bay update

All,

On October 7, Bangor Daily News (BDN) Managing Editor Mike Dowd sent an email to the SPB webmaster apologizing for distress caused by the BDN's lack of treatment on complaints regarding the "Screw Canada" and other uncivil online comments.

As previously notified to you, the BDN has removed all comments and the comments feature from the last two LNG-related articles (see URLs, below), due to our complaints regarding violations of BDN's Terms of Service in online comments.


9/29/09 | 39 comments
Maine, Canada at odds over LNG
http://www.bangordailynews.com/detail/122941.html

10/3/09 | 11 comments
EDITORIAL 
LNG Long Haul
http://www.bangordailynews.com/detail/123528.html

Thanks, once again, to all who participated in pressuring the BDN on this issue.

Together, we are making a difference!

Robert Godfrey
webmaster & researcher
Save Passamaquoddy Bay 3-Nation Alliance 

Saturday, October 3, 2009

Canaport LNG to Invest in Restoring Wetlands in New Brunswick

Get the pictures and subscribe at: http://fundytides.blogspot.com


Posted: October 2, 2009

Canaport LNG has entered into a memorandum of understanding with the town of Hampton, New Brunswick, to restore a decommissioned lagoon that was used to process sewage effluent from nearby homes. The Telegraph-Journal reports that Canaport LNG must restore a total of approximately 48 hectares of wetlands to comply with provincial requirements and that this project will restore nearly 9 hectares.

From the LNG Law Blog

LNG - Neighbours respecting neighbors or time to eat crow?

Get the pictures and subscribe at: http://fundytides.blogspot.com


The specter of LNG hovers over the Quoddy Region like this blind crow. Will it be the death of this eco-economy?

The following Editorial from the Bangor Daily News seems to say it like it is and gives some good advice to Governor Baldacii. 

Unfortunately, politicians really don't seem  to like to "eat crow", although admitting an error would likely endear them to their electorate more than a stubborn stance on issues like LNG in Passamaquoddy Bay. This has divided friends, family and neighbours and is threatening to divide Maine and New Brunswick, two jurisdictions that have gotten along remarkably well in the past.

It's the wrong place. Forget the special and profitable ecosystem that exists here Governor - bringing foreign vessels and crews and their exceedingly dangerous cargo into a highly sensitive border port really makes no sense whatsoever. Does it? 

Thanks for this BDN and Vivian N. Art

*******************************
http://www.bangordailynews.com/detail/123528.html

10/3/09 editorial
LNG Long Haul

Rough waters lie ahead as Maine and New Brunswick work to secure ties to what may emerge as a key fuel in the coming decades, liquefied natural gas, or LNG. Gov. John Baldacci and New Brunswick Premier Shawn Graham have developed a friendly working relationship on energy, tourism and other issues, but it appears the two men must agree to disagree on the LNG projects proposed for eastern Washington County.

Gov. Baldacci must continue to strongly assert, to both U.S. federal regulators and Canadian officials, that LNG importation has a future in Maine. Unfortunately, the governor has painted himself into a corner after earlier fights over LNG proposals in Maine.

After the ugly battle in Harpswell in 2004, which resulted in a town vote that blocked development of an LNG importation facility there, Gov. Baldacci pledged that the state would not pursue siting an LNG terminal in any town that voted its opposition to such a project. Shortly after that pledge, the state revealed that a developer of LNG terminals was inquiring about using state-owned Sears Island in Searsport for a facility. Searsport voters, at their annual town meeting in 2004, also voted to oppose LNG anywhere in town.

Three proposals for LNG terminals in eastern Washington County have been made in recent years. Some would argue that since Irving has opened an LNG terminal in Saint John, the race is over for Maine. This is not so.

Maine, because of its cold climate, lack of access to natural gas and heavy reliance on No. 2 oil for home heating, must continue to be aggressive about pursuing new energy technology and fuels. Though electricity generated by wind and tide will provide part of the state's energy portfolio, LNG may become a dominant fuel for industry and electric generation.

It is unfortunate that Gov. Baldacci promised that no LNG terminal would be built over the objection of local residents. The state's long-held three-port strategy, which aimed to concentrate maritime transportation in Portland, Searsport and Eastport, was trumped by the governor's well-intentioned but short-sighted pledge. Premier Graham's concerns about the safety from LNG tankers passing through Passamaquoddy Bay, expressed in a recent opinion piece in a New Brunswick newspaper, are not without foundation. Other deep-water ports in Maine are probably better suited for LNG terminals.

The next governor must take up Gov. Baldacci's focus on energy issues and remain open to new and creative solutions to the old problems of heating and lighting our homes and businesses. But the next governor also should work to refine the state's energy policies to include identifying sites where LNG or some other fuel might be safely imported.

Whether an LNG facility is permitted in eastern Washington County in the next few years or not, the state must continue to extend a hand of partnership to New Brunswick while keeping an eye on how agreements serve Maine.


Photo Credit: Art MacKay