wreckedinri:
Lots of other wrecks . . . and "favorite dive sites". Less and less options for staying warm.
True... there are other favorite sites, and if this really were about a new (or better) way to keep people warm, making us more secure, or even combatting a shortage, there might be some merit to the idea. So far as I can tell though, it's about none of these things. Recent energy shortages were due more to poor planning than to any kind of actual supply shortcomings, and this is about AES not wanting to be the last LNG company on the block to get approved for having a new transfer facility. They want to be able to compete with Distrigas's facility in Everett in order to gain market share in the area, and as I understand it there are several other of their competitors who recently got approval to use offshore facilities in the Gulf of Mexico. The new facility would have no impact on the operations of the existing facility, so it would not make Boston residents safer in the case of an LNG explosion, it would just add a second facility in the area.
This isn't just an unused rock out in safe water, it's national park land. It's the only of the islands in the Boston Harbor Island national park that's home to several bird species, and the majority of the intertidal rock substrate habitat in the harbor is on and around the island. Of course that habitat would have to be blasted out to put in a pier long enough for 900+' tankers to dock, and the bottom would very likely have to be dredged again (after a couple billion in recent taxpayer spending to clean the harbor) to lay new pipeline and so that there's adequate draft to get these tankers in and out.
The exclusion zone itself wouldn't be bad for the marine life, but the operation of the facility and it's construction would disrupt habitat for seals, rare birds, and a variety of marine life.
The recreational impact is just a motivating afterthought, but in the interest of security, the proposal calls for twice-weekly delivery of LNG on an unannounced basis. These arrivals would restrict all boat traffic in the approach and departure corridor, as well as while offloading, and is estimated to take 24 to 48 hours each time... which effectively keeps the southern approach to Boston Harbor closed for a more-or-less random 50% of the time.
Again, this isn't tied to any kind of guaranteed cost reduction for residents, it doesn't help to meet any real demand in the area, and it isn't a part of any kind of cohesive national energy plan. It's one company trying to pad it's pockets, and they want our permission to do so at the expense of well-loved historical national park lands and important habitat.
Sounds like a real winner, huh?
Dragon2115:
Well now, it looks like we're finally starting to see what the real motivating factors behind the opposition here are. Coincidentally it just happens to fall right in line with what I said about individuals putting their recreational wants over the needs of millions of other people.
It also falls right in line with what I said about you being astute. What you quoted is my reason I think the discussion is dive related, not the be-all and end-all of why I don't think the proposal is sound. That I want to use the island for recreation (the use for which the federal recreation area is designated) neither means that that's my only argument, that my reasons aren't well thought out, that I'm a 'NIMBY', or that recreation isn't a valid use. Call me crazy, but I think national park land is more important than energy company profiteering. If you can provide some evidence that having a facility there would provide some real benefit to local residents vis-a-vis the cost of staying warm in the winter, I'd be happy to hear it.
So long as it seems to be primarily driven by profit motive and not public good, I'll no more support this than I would the cordoning off of 1000 acres of Yellowstone for oil drilling or the leveling of Monticello for the building of a McDonalds.
