Kerry's Support for LNG......

[MSilvia]

Matt, I have been resisting getting drawn into this thread, but I wanted to let you know that is the best argument against this plan that I have heard yet. Though I am sure another nonsensical reply will follow. I can't see a crack in your logic. I hope I can quote some of your stuff at the Save the Brewsters booth this week. Capt. Pat

I hope so too Pat, but there's a lot of info available at the table if you want to refresh your memory.

I didn't even get into another problem area... the sea state around that island during Nor'easters. Look at a chart, and imagine trying to get a 900' tanker with a 55' draft out of there in 30' seas.

 

[deeper thoughts]

Keep up the fight and the pressure on your senators sometimes public pressure or shame will compel someone to act, Good Luck.

 

[scubabear6]

Keep up the fight and the pressure on your senators sometimes public pressure or shame will compel someone to act, Good Luck.

Kerry show shame?? Now that's funny!!

 

[adshepard]

The siting of LNG facilites is extremely controversial. Certainly there are dangers to such facilities (how much is open to debate), they are ugly as sin (great for the tourist industry), the shipping disrupts not only recreational activities but commercial activities too. It can also be a danger to local marine life such as whales, dolphins and seals. LNG ships would go right through marine mammal feeding grounds (right, humpback, minke and fin whales) in Passamaquoddy Bay and collisions betwen whales and large vessels usually end up with the whales losing.

For more info you can go here:

http://www.savepassamaquoddybay.org/

The fight continues in my beloved Passamaquoddy Bay and with any luck the Canadians will deny passage to LNG ships and all will be well. Actually their newly elected government has already promised that they will deny such shipping but the pro-LNG in the US folks still persist.

Good luck in Brewster.

I actually have less of a problem, if any, with the one intended for Long Island Sound. I live in Connecticut, so you see it's not about whether such facilities should be allowed but just where they should be. The LI Sound facility will not greatly disrupt tourism or recreation and will have less of an impact on other commercial activities than other proposed sites.

DSDO

Alan

 

[Dragon2115]

Great post there Matt. If that wasn't just a cut and paste from the talking points sheet off the website then you should work for political campaigns. All that was missing was an mpeg of AES employees clubbing baby seals for fun while waiting for their Piping Plover egg omelettes to finish cooking on a super heated outlet pipe for the plants' toxic waste water run off.

Now lets inject a little sanity into this.

1. If there's no real demand, as you claim, then what is AES planning to do with two large tankers worth of LNG per week?

2. If there is no real demand, as you claim, then there would be no way to make a return on the investment for this facility. If that is true why is a company willing to invest $500 million dollars in it?

3. When you claim there is no real demand, how far out into the future are you estimating regional energy needs, who made the estimate, and what qualifies them to make it?

4. You claim that previous shortages were the result of poor planning on the part of the gas company. Would having a second company with its own independent facility, deliveries schedules, and forecasts increase or decrease the likelihood of this occurring again?

5. Can we even begin to discuss closing the Everett facility for safety reasons if there isn't another one in the area to take its place?

6. You state that there is no guarantee that building this facility will lower natural gas prices for consumers. Can you guarantee that prices will not increase if we do not build this facility?

7. Of the people that are protesting this project on safety grounds due to its proximity to Hull, which is two miles away, how many of them put the same effort into blocking the Fall River proposal which would have been a tiny fraction of that distance away from residential buildings?

8. You claim that shipping traffic in the harbor will only be open a random 50% of the time. What does the port authority say the actual impact to shipping and recreational boating traffic will be?

9. You claim there would be significant risk of an accident during bad weather and claim 30' sea conditions. When was the last time you saw a 900'+ ship navigate the Boston Harbor approaches, or try to dock, in 30' seas?

10. How many times in the past 50 years has Boston Harbor even seen 30' seas?

11. How long would a sea state like that last, a day or two?

12. Do you seriously believe that the delivery wouldn't be rescheduled in the event of a storm of that magnitude?

13. How many people even care about the supposedly unique strata of Outer Brewster Island?

14. How many people have set foot on the island to take note of it, or even in general for that matter, in the past 10 years?

15. Is there any evidence that the seals and birds will not return to the island once the construction is finished and they get used to the routine?

16. Is there any evidence that this project will result in the extinction of any animal species?

17. Is Boston a major commercial seaport or not? If it is then why shouldn't an LNG facility be located there?

Here's an exercise that will hopefully raise awareness of our dependance on natural gas a little. The next time you're (that's global and not directed at you Matt) in work, at an office building, at the bank, or in any large building in the greater Boston area, see if you can find out what the building is heated with. Here's another one to try, call up the electric company and ask what percentage of the electricity was generated by a natural gas fired power plant? Now think about what the effects would be if something were to happen to the only LNG facility in the Boston area that supplies all of them. Then try to justify why we shouldn't have redundancy that could prevent it from happening.

Obviously none of this will make any difference to you Matt, and truthfully I really don't care if it does or not. The purpose of them is so that others might read them and start to apply some critical thinking to the doom and gloom message you people are feeding them. In some cases it's warranted but in this case I think it's unfounded.

 

[LobstaMan]

Dragon....note to self......don't write any more posts longer than a fifth grade essay. No one is gonna read it!

LobstaMan

 

[MSilvia]

Oh man... with a post like that, you're going to have to reply in two parts. I hate doing that, but with 17 points to cover, you force my hand. If turning this thread into a quagmire no one would be willing to wade through was your goal, you may have succeeded.

Great post there Matt.

Thanks... I wrote it myself based on my still-limited research. If you'd read the taking points on any of the websites related to the issue, you'd know it wasn't a cut and paste. Of course, since you didn't recognize that, and have more questions than answers, I'll assume you haven't read much about it, pro or con. Allow me to do some homework for both of us, and as you asked, inject a little sanity. By all means, feel free to find and post contrary evidence for any of this... I'm certainly not an expert in natural gas, and I form my opinions based on my own understanding of what I find and read. I'm certainly not beyond error, and I'm interested in doing the right thing here. If I'm wrong, please help me to understand how.

1. If there's no real demand, as you claim, then what is AES planning to do with two large tankers worth of LNG per week?

2. If there is no real demand, as you claim, then there would be no way to make a return on the investment for this facility. If that is true why is a company willing to invest $500 million dollars in it?

3. When you claim there is no real demand, how far out into the future are you estimating regional energy needs, who made the estimate, and what qualifies them to make it?

4. You claim that previous shortages were the result of poor planning on the part of the gas company. Would having a second company with its own independent facility, deliveries schedules, and forecasts increase or decrease the likelihood of this occurring again?

Oh, there's demand... plenty of demand, and plenty of money to be made. It's just that it's demand for natural gas in North America, not in the terminal's area in particular. When the LNG is deliquified, it would be put directly into pipelines for distribution to storage facilities, in which the utility companies hold gas (or in some cases LNG) in reserve to meet peak demand. It was miscalculating the reserves necessary to meet demand over prolonged cold spells, and not the amount of NG in the pipelines, that caused the recent shortages in New England. Increasing storage reserves would probably help to meet shortages, but a storage facility isn't what's being proposed. The incoming LNG would be used to meet natural gas demands nation-wide, and while I recognize that upgrading our import capacity is necessary (even with increasing NG delivery capacity from Canada and Mexico), IMHO that does not necessitate using National Park land for it when there are 20 other location proposals pending. Again, REGIONAL needs don't justify the location of the facility there from a demand standpoint.

I say that based on projections of consumption and delivery capacity made by the Energy Information Administration and Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. The projections extend to 2025.

5. Can we even begin to discuss closing the Everett facility for safety reasons if there isn't another one in the area to take its place?

We can discuss it until we're blue in the face, but since congressmen inserted language into appropriations bill H.R. 4818 stating that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) can pre-empt states on the permitting and siting of liquefied natural gas (LNG) facilities, it's not up to us. FERC's position is that we need more capacity, so they aren't about to close recently expanded facilities that already exist. If we let the waiver for the national park site go through, and the terminal passes the approval process, there's about a snowball's chance in Hell that the Everett facility will be closed as a result.

6. You state that there is no guarantee that building this facility will lower natural gas prices for consumers. Can you guarantee that prices will not increase if we do not build this facility?

No, in fact, I can absolutely assure you they'll increase either way. Inflation will do that. In 2025, gas prices will be up. Bank on it.

7. Of the people that are protesting this project on safety grounds due to its proximity to Hull, which is two miles away, how many of them put the same effort into blocking the Fall River proposal which would have been a tiny fraction of that distance away from residential buildings?

That has nothing to do with it. One doesn't need to be a well-rounded energy policy activist in order to take an interest in local issues. Implying that one does only makes it seem as though you're trying to divert attention from the real issue by questioning the integrity and commitment of those with the opposing view.

8. You claim that shipping traffic in the harbor will only be open a random 50% of the time. What does the port authority say the actual impact to shipping and recreational boating traffic will be?

I didn't claim that. I claimed that the southern approach would be closed because of a security zone that would cut off access to Hypocrite Channel, which is not the same thing. As for Massport's position, they haven't given a statement that I'm aware of, and I'm not sure why they would. It isn't the commercial shipping lane that would be affected, and (as far as marine concerns go, they're primarily focused on commercial shipping and activities in the DPA (Designated Port Area) from South Boston to Charlestown.

9. You claim there would be significant risk of an accident during bad weather and claim 30' sea conditions. When was the last time you saw a 900'+ ship navigate the Boston Harbor approaches, or try to dock, in 30' seas?

I've never seen it, and it's not something any prudent (or even reckless) captain would attempt. My concern is of weather building quickly while a tanker is offloading, leaving it in a position of being unable to depart quickly enough to avoid being caught in the open an area full of rocky outcropping in dangerous seas.

10. How many times in the past 50 years has Boston Harbor even seen 30' seas?

I'm not sure of the count, but the last time that particular area saw them was as of the 12pm EST NOAA report on 06 November 2002. The fire department in Hull was using boats to rescue people from their houses that day.

11. How long would a sea state like that last, a day or two?

What am I, the weatherman? I don't know... the longest prolonged period of dangerously high seas I remember was probably three or four days, but a storm like the Portland gale, the storm of Nov 25 1888, or the storm of April 16, 1851 (that toppled Minot Lighthouse with 90+ foot waves) wouldn't take very long to put a ship out there in peril.

12. Do you seriously believe that the delivery wouldn't be rescheduled in the event of a storm of that magnitude?

I think reasonable precautions would be taken, but the weather can change suddenly and unexpectedly, and accidents can and do happen. Why risk it when other, less risky, locations are possible?

13. How many people even care about the supposedly unique strata of Outer Brewster Island?

14. How many people have set foot on the island to take note of it, or even in general for that matter, in the past 10 years?

Lots of people take note of it, as evidenced by the busy petition table "Save the Brewsters" had on a weekday afternoon at the New England Boat Show. Among the comments I got personally were things like, "Thanks alot for doing this... that's been one of my family's favorite fishing spots for generations.", "On Brewster Island? I love Brewster! Where do I sign?", and "We can't let them get away with that. I moved to Montana several years ago, but I spent a lot of time out around Brewster and Green when I was living in Weymouth, and my husband and I go out there every time we come back to visit."

Sorry I don't have a headcount for you, just a lot of anaecdotal support and several pages of signatures I collected in a few hours of sitting at a table.

15. Is there any evidence that the seals and birds will not return to the island once the construction is finished and they get used to the routine?

Are you serious?

16. Is there any evidence that this project will result in the extinction of any animal species?

Is there evidence it will cause the depletion of already strained populations, yes. Will it cause their extinction? Probably not. I guess if "only"

17. Is Boston a major commercial seaport or not? If it is then why shouldn't an LNG facility be located there?

Yes, it is, and we already have an LNG terminal that seems to be adequate. If having one is something you think a self-respecting major seaport ought to want, why not share the wealth and let some other major seaport have one too?

 

[MSilvia]

The next time you're (that's global and not directed at you Matt) in work, at an office building, at the bank, or in any large building in the greater Boston area, see if you can find out what the building is heated with.

I'll do you one better. Find out how the fuel for that heat gets there, and what impact an additional local input into the national supply would have on local reserves.

Here's another one to try, call up the electric company and ask what percentage of the electricity was generated by a natural gas fired power plant? Now think about what the effects would be if something were to happen to the only LNG facility in the Boston area that supplies all of them. Then try to justify why we shouldn't have redundancy that could prevent it from happening.

I called them, and they're mailing me a list. I'll let you know what it says, although as someone who has gas heat and a gas stove, I'm far from pretending that local availability doesn't impact me. Whatever portion of my electricity is generated from natural gas only adds to what I already know I consume. As for what would happen if the terminal in Everett went offline, many of the abundant (and often underground) NG/LNG storage tanks in the area are owned directly by the power companies, and the pipelines that supply them (except in the case of "satellite" storage tanks supplied by truck) are not exclusively connected to Everett. The point is, we do have redundancy, and while we'll want to increase national supplies beyond what our existing terminals and terrestrial pipelines can support, an Outer Brewster terminal is not the best looking proposal for adding input capacity.

Obviously none of this will make any difference to you Matt, and truthfully I really don't care if it does or not. The purpose of them is so that others might read them and start to apply some critical thinking to the doom and gloom message you people are feeding them. In some cases it's warranted but in this case I think it's unfounded.

I care enough to have spent a couple of rare free saturday morning hours responding to your post about it. My point was never that we don't need more energy availability, or even that Brewster Island is more important than meeting that need. All I'm saying is that there's no good reason to sacrifice a unique piece of protected land in order to build one right there. Even if I were to believe that we need another facility nearby, I prefer the following one, not to be confused with Oklohoma-based Excellerate's proposal for a facility 13 miles south of Gloucester that to the chagrin of Gloucester's fishing community would have a security zone overlapping rich cod and haddock fishing grounds. Why do you seem so hell-bent on having it on Outer Brewster? Did the harbor islands national park run over your cat or something?

(excerpted from citizen.org)

Suez Energy Resources North America’s Neptune Project’s application is undergoing an initial completeness review by the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) and the U.S. Maritime Administration (MARAD).

The company, via Neptune LNG, submitted its application in February 2005. The project would be located 10 miles south of the city of Gloucester and 22 miles north east of Boston. The project would supplement Suez’s existing Everett, Massachusetts terminal.

 

[Boston Diver Services]

Matt, you are a very patient man. We also had a great response on Friday at the Save the Brewster's booth. Although we found that many people had never even heard of the plan. Many more thought it was being built to replace Everett. When supplied with some of the facts, few were in favor of the plan. Lets hope this can all be put to rest soon. P.

 

[MSilvia]

call up the electric company and ask what percentage of the electricity was generated by a natural gas fired power plant?

Okay, I got the info I was promised. Of the power that my electric company buys from the market (98% of the total they consume), 37% is generated by natural gas. The power generated by natural gas resources that are company owned only accounts for 1% of the power they sell. As I figure it, that means natural gas generators account for 36.26% of the power my electric company's customers use.

That's just over one third. Mystery solved.