It's a top agenda item on the domestic energy plan. LNG terminals are few and far between in the U.S., yet our natural gas demand has heavily increased over the last several years.LobstaMan:
Proposed LNG facility in Boston Harbor Islands Nat'l Park
- Thread starter SaveTheHarbor
- Start date
Please register or login
Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.
Benefits of registering include
- Ability to post and comment on topics and discussions.
- A Free photo gallery to share your dive photos with the world.
- You can make this box go away
the cost of gas is gone thru the roof this season. the demand needs to be meet..
it MUST go somewhere....
the proposed location might not be the best choice,
if not then what is....?
i do think that our security and safty is much more important than how the clams in the area will react to the boat traffic or whatever the issue is
it MUST go somewhere....
the proposed location might not be the best choice,
if not then what is....?
i do think that our security and safty is much more important than how the clams in the area will react to the boat traffic or whatever the issue is
LobstaMan
Guest
Without extremely valid reasons, I am opposed to any oil drilling, hunting, fishing, logging, construction, etc, etc. in National parks and conservation areas. Our unspoiled and natural areas are disappearing and giving way to suburan sprawl, strip malls, McMansions and Super Walmarts. So we are now going to build on parklands as well? It won't be there for future Americas if we start destroying the character and purpose of these places because we need more energy. So keep the LNG facility out of our park lands and put it somewhere else. I have no problem with it in MA just not in the unique area of the islands parklands. If it is necessary, then by all means build it. Just pick a different site. I'm sure some type of compromise site can be located. Would they allow oil rigs in YellowStone NP?
just my opinion..........
LobstaMan
just my opinion..........
LobstaMan
you make a valid point.
IF there allowed to put it there.. the presadent (sp) would be set and who knows what wil happen next.
they shoulda taken all that big dig fill and used it to make a island for it like they did to make a airport in hong kong
IF there allowed to put it there.. the presadent (sp) would be set and who knows what wil happen next.
they shoulda taken all that big dig fill and used it to make a island for it like they did to make a airport in hong kong
MSilvia
Contributor
Not a bad idea Diesel298... making an island to put it on would be fine with me, and they could tailor the location to minimize interference with the national park, historic sites, recreational areas, shipping lanes, and fishing grounds, while simultaneously optimizing the location for security and distribution needs.
There's so much landfill in the area already (half of Boston, for instance) that I wouldn't think it a major undertaking by comparison.
There's so much landfill in the area already (half of Boston, for instance) that I wouldn't think it a major undertaking by comparison.
MSilvia
Contributor
I don't think that's the problem at all. I don't mind one bit having a LNG facility in the area. Heck, I'll take two.Diesel298:
Just don't build it on top of a historic site in a national park that happens to be fantastic for diving, fishing, kayaking, and recreational boating. Pick a different island at least... maybe Green.
FredT
Guest
This brings back memories of the mid '70s. There was a bunch of energy issues then, with a bunch of NIMBY issues as well as a bunch of "which wallet gets raped" issues. The sentiment down here in oil country then was "let the b********s freeze in the dark" as we paid over 4X the cost of the NE states for the same energy equivalent. Again this is brings up a NIMBY issue.
My personal belief is any state or region one who uses any form of "packaged" energy that restricts development of the infrastructure necessary to produce or distribute that energy, without providing a suitable local alternative energy source, should be provided that engery from a neighboring state or region at a significant $ premium. Something along the lines of a 200 to 300% premium based on energy content would be about right.
To provide a cushion for natural and terrorist service disruptions EVERY state should be self-sufficient in energy production/distribution capacity. Those who choose not to be should help pay for the inconvenience to other states for providing that service to them. Eventually the $s lost t the local economy will over shadow the NIMBY concerns.
FT
My personal belief is any state or region one who uses any form of "packaged" energy that restricts development of the infrastructure necessary to produce or distribute that energy, without providing a suitable local alternative energy source, should be provided that engery from a neighboring state or region at a significant $ premium. Something along the lines of a 200 to 300% premium based on energy content would be about right.
To provide a cushion for natural and terrorist service disruptions EVERY state should be self-sufficient in energy production/distribution capacity. Those who choose not to be should help pay for the inconvenience to other states for providing that service to them. Eventually the $s lost t the local economy will over shadow the NIMBY concerns.
FT
- Messages
- 233
- Reaction score
- 2
I just can't keep quiet. I have not heard anyone say "Not in my Backyard", they are saying "Not in my National Park"!! In fact I believe Matt has ordered two for his yard. P.
LobstaMan:
Well the next time you go on a boat dive, I suggest that you use wind power. Oh and the next time that you turn on your computer well since you are aginst anytype of drillling in just about any where, or hunting ect. Well maybe you shouldn't turn on your computer. Lobstaman.
AlaskaDiver
Contributor
- Messages
- 612
- Reaction score
- 6
- # of dives
- 1000 - 2499
LNG facilites in the area will more than likely be beneficial - especially in the long run. I have received literature from our local gas company with my most recent bill. We have the lowest prices on natural gas in the nation despite the Cook Inlet gas pocket being found in 1969. Not surprisingly, New England has the highest prices. The entire oil/gas production has made gigantic steps in environmental awareness over the past 10 years. I'm not a tree hugger and I do not work for an oil company. It is simply a matter of economical necessity. Although Alaska and Massachusetts (I grew up near Worcester) are entirely different locations each with its own set of gas usage needs, I would encourage folks to take a look at the benefits before saying that they do not want to have it in a particular location because of it affecting their recreational rights. You must look at the big picture.
There are many websites extolling the virtues of the new LNG proposal for Alaska. Not all are altruistically motivated - some proponents are supportive for their own pure greed. With that said, LNG will be the next oil boom in our state. Our economy will profit from it including residents like me who benefit from not only local business, but from the Permanent Fund Dividend checks. LNG's potential is there, you just have to weed out the self-serving weenies mired inthe politics. I'm sure Massachusetts has a few of their own.
Our local newspaper, Anchorage Daily News (somewhat liberal view points) has archives which can be searched for free regarding LNG issues. www.adn.com
Another basic one for info is http://www.hydrocarbons-technology.com/projects/alaska/
There are many websites extolling the virtues of the new LNG proposal for Alaska. Not all are altruistically motivated - some proponents are supportive for their own pure greed. With that said, LNG will be the next oil boom in our state. Our economy will profit from it including residents like me who benefit from not only local business, but from the Permanent Fund Dividend checks. LNG's potential is there, you just have to weed out the self-serving weenies mired inthe politics. I'm sure Massachusetts has a few of their own.
Our local newspaper, Anchorage Daily News (somewhat liberal view points) has archives which can be searched for free regarding LNG issues. www.adn.com
Another basic one for info is http://www.hydrocarbons-technology.com/projects/alaska/
Similar threads
