LNG facility in outer Boston harbor.....?

[Dragon2115]

Some interesting thoughts.

I'm all for cleaner buring fuels, but I hope this one doesn't go through. Not only will it ruin a really nice spot, but all the tanker traffic will really cahnge the whole atomosphere of the park system.

Maybe. As we know, piers make shelter for lots of marine life. What the impact would be is therefore not crystal clear. I'll agree that the sight of tankers coming and going from the terminal is not going to be that appealing though.

I think they need to build an offshore platform.

Any company that feels there would be sufficient return on their investment would jump all over that. Given that nobody is willing to propose such a plan would indicate the cost outweigh the returns. Like them or not they're in the business of making money, that's what companies do, or they go out of business. The fact is it's just not economically viable for a company to undertake such a project. That would mean another state or federal project like the Big Dig. Given how much of a class-A four-alarm fuster cluck that turned out to be does anybody really want to let them have a go at this?

And, for all the people so concerned about HUMAN impact, this proposed spot is still really close to Hull - a town that already is in the direct path of much of the Logan...

The nearest houses are two miles away and outside of the immediate blast zone. Given the distance, with proper construction, any shock wave can be even further deflected. The other reason for the site choice is the location of a gas main only 1.2 miles away that the facility can tap into. Now unlike Logan something could in fact be offered to the people of Hull in return, such as discount NG. If Hull is a poor town then providing cheap NG should help residents make ends meet better. I'm not saying they will offer it but it's not something that can't be put on the table.

...just because it's a poorer town should thiey now be stuck all these tankers too? I know their reps have promised to fight hard to stop it.

But sadly that's exactly what a lot of people are willing to do to Fall River. The fact is, nobody wants an LNG terminal in their town and they'll fight long and hard to prevent it. So what's left? State and Federal lands are about it.

As I diver, I have to oppose it - the park system is just too precious.

In the grand scheme of things I think we need to ask ourselves this, is a small handful of dive sites and one island out of the 34 that are in the park more important than between 10k - 50k lives? That's what's at stake if the terminal is not moved or is moved to Fall River and there's a catastrophic accident.

I applaud those that say they would gladly have it in the own backyard if it kept it away from the dive sites, unfortunately there aren't enough of you around and in the right towns to have an effect.

 

[MASS-Diver]

Update: there's have been a ton of reaction in the local papers from Hull residents.....all negative..... Put it offshore, not in our Park system. These companies are all about money - why should we sarcrific "our" island to them? They aren't working for our good.

 

[Jeff Toorish]

It is a brave new world in the USA...we have virutally done away with welfare for needy families and replaced it with welfare for huge corporations.

Time for a change.

Safe Diving,

Jeff

 

[MSilvia]

In the grand scheme of things I think we need to ask ourselves this, is a small handful of dive sites and one island out of the 34 that are in the park more important than between 10k - 50k lives?

I think presenting it as "one island out of 34" makes it sound as if all 34 of them are pretty much similar and interchangable. They aren't.

 

[MASS-Diver]

Lifesaving Museum joins LNG opposition: Calls plan ‘deeply offensive'

By JOHN ZAREMBA
The Patriot Ledger

HULL - The Hull Lifesaving Museum has joined the chorus of those who have vowed to fight a proposed liquefied natural gas terminal on Outer Brewster Island.

Museum officials yesterday issued a statement saying it is ‘‘deeply offensive'' for Virginia energy company AES to want to build a gas tank on the island, a rocky outpost two miles offshore in the Boston Harbor Islands National Park Area.

‘‘Would the (U.S.) Park Service or the governor give serious consideration to a plan for the Statue of Liberty to be used as an oil terminal or Yosemite to store nuclear waste?'' the statement read.

‘‘This wilderness is not an empty wasteland, but a well-protected refuge teeming with flora and wildlife. National parks and recreation areas serve all and defend timeless, precious places from private, short-term interests.''

The traditionally apolitical museum has mounted a petition campaign. In doing so, it has provided the latest evidence that, just as citizens have done with similar proposals in Fall River, Cape Ann and Providence, Hull is prepared to put up a fight.

Earlier this week, residents of Point Allerton said they are writing to their congressmen to state their concerns, both for their personal safety and the stability of the island's ecosystem.

Selectmen Chairman Christopher Olivieri told The Patriot Ledger he will do everything in his power to block the tank from being built.

State Rep. Garrett Bradley has said the development appears to be ‘‘all pain and no gain'' for the town. State Sen. Robert Hedlund has said the tank would be out of place in an area that is supposed to be a national park.

On a broader regional level, the Boston Harbor Islands Alliance, an advocacy group to promote island tourism and preservation, said it, too, opposes construction of the terminal.

AES unveiled its plans last week, saying that Outer Brewster Island is an ideal location because it is a safe distance from Metropolitan Boston and that it is one of the national park area's least-visited islands.

The company anticipated that local residents and officials would object, at least at the outset.

‘‘Every proposal encounters initial opposition,'' said Dominick Ianno, a spokesman for the subsidiary AES has established to build the project. ‘‘We're confident that once we explain the many benefits that this project will bring to Hull, there will be little local opposition.''

While the property tax, projected to be about $5 million a year, would go to Boston and the $10-million-a-year-lease will be paid to the state, Ianno said Hull stands to gain as well. He did not provide details.

‘‘There will be other benefits that we'll get into down the road,'' he said. ‘‘Nothing set in stone.''

Museum officials have encouraged members of the public to submit their signatures via e-mails to lifesavingmuseum@comcast.net, or in person at 1117 Nantasket Ave

 

[MSilvia]

I just got a response with a little bit of info on when the proposal will be submitted:

TO: Matthew Silvia
FR: Paul Brennan, III

RE: Outer Brewster Island Plan

Dear Mr. Silvia:

I am writing to inform you that Senator Morrissey has received your email regarding your concerns with AES proposal for construction of a Liquified Natural Gas terminal on Outer Brewster Island. You are correct that because this land is currently under state control under the Department of Conservation and Recreation there would first have to be a number of state and federal exemptions put in place for any plan to be implemented.

It is my understanding that AES will be submitting their plans and petitions for legislative intervention by November 1st. I can assure you that Senator Morrissey, in his capacity as Senate Chairman of the Joint Committee on Telecommunication, Utilities and Energy is aware of the issues and will continue to monitor these events closely as they develop.

Please do not hesitate to contact the office again if we can be of further assistance with this or any other matter. In addition, Senator Morrissey would be happy to send you a formal reply to this or any issue in the future through the USPS should you like to provide your mailing address. Also, please feel free to contact the office directly by phone.

Paul.
*******************************************************************
Paul Brennan, III
Staff
Office of Michael W. Morrissey
Senator - Norfolk and Plymouth District
room 413D, State House
Boston, MA 02133

 

[large_diver]

That's a lot of ink wasted on a non-reply.....;-)

 

[matt_unique]

That's a lot of ink wasted on a non-reply.....;-)

Ditto....
I swear they all have the same template. <Insert Name> blah blah blah deeply comitted to <insert issue> and will advocate for blah blah blah.

I have heard from some members of Congress with the same nonsense (not relating to this issue).

--Matt

 

[ClassAction]

I was actually impressed with the reply. The staff member clearly did some homework and took the time to respond. Granted, there was no promise of a fight, etc. But the senator's job is to consider the the big picuture before making any promises. I dive outer brewser all time time, but I'll concede that I want to know more about this facility before I make up my mind. If this is a matter of public safety, and keeping in mind that few people really make use of the island, I'm not sure that I can be against the facility in good conscience.

 

[MSilvia]

I was happy to get a personal response that specifically addressed some questions I had included in my original email. Granted, it was from a member of Sen. Morrissey's office staff, but that's fine with me. I was impressed that the response wasn't standard boilerplate like I've gotten from every other government representative I've written to.

Also, I followed up by asking if the AES proposal would be made public when it was submitted, and was again pleasantly suprised to get a response about ten minutes later:

Thanks for the reply Paul.
Will the AES proposal be made available to the public when it is submitted?
Matt

Hi Matt:
If the proposal is made in the form of a legislative bill (either in the House or Senate) for some sort of exemption or release of the land from DCR, then yes, the bill would be a public document. It would have to be filed by a legislator, receive a docket number and then the House and Senate would each have to agree to send it to the same Joint Committee, and from there it would go through the legislative process.
Paul