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
FredT
Guest
LobstaMan:
Moot point. Oil is quite rare in calderas and other volcanic sites.
Please note that LNG unloading facilities SHOULD be placed as far from densly populated areas as practical for safety reasons. For a scenario that makes 9/11 look tame look at what happens if a loaded LNG tanker is holed in a dewar in the NYC harbor. Spreading cryogenic flamable gas on an infinite heat source will make a VERY BIG rapidly expanding orange ball. Think about a flash fireball several miles in diameter in a populated area. The safety procedures used to handle the stuff are both intense and comprehensive, but not being there if the worst happens is a really good idea.
AFAIK the number of uninhabited places on the East coast near a reasonable harbor that are not already designated as park land by SOMEBODY is EXTREMELY limited north of Duck, NC.
The space shuttle main engine test facility has fuel and O2 tanks a bit smaller than a LNG transport dewar. We crunched the available energy in those tanks and figured if both the H2 and O2 tanks failed at the same time there wouldn't be a pine tree standing for about 15 miles radius. The buffer zone to the nearest dwelling is 25 miles radius from the cryo fuel tanks. A similar radius to a LNG facility should be maintained if at all possible.
FT
The BRAC list has been submitted. Got any coastal military bases being closed down? Stick an LNG terminal there. I know there was loose talk this fall about using former bases as new build refineries.
MASS-Diver
Contributor
FredT:
The proposed site is 2 miles off Hull. Keep in mind there are no plans to shut down any of the current LNG facilites located in densely populated areas, this would simple be a new site (not a replacment). But, this really has nothing to do with saftey and everything to do with money and greed.
It's disgusting that this has even went this far.
large_diver
Contributor
These projects will keep popping up due to the LNG demand and the fact that there aren't enough facilities to handle the growing volume over the long term. There have been several proposed projects in more rural areas in recent years. One that came close to getting approved relatively recently was in Brunswick/Harpswell, ME. There is a jet fuel offloading terminal and tank farm that Brunswick Naval Air Station no longer uses...seemed like a potential "match" given the relatively sparse population, the ability to get ships into this location, the existing tank farm, etc. The town of Harpswell was going to get a HUGE infusion of $$$ under the terms of the deal, but in the end it was turned down via a town-wide vote. One of the big downsides was the impact it was going to have on the local lobster fishery -- lobstermen whose families had been fishing certain areas for decades were going to lose their ability to fish in these areas....essentially putting them out of business.
I certainly don't back the Boston Harbor option, but it makes you wonder where these things SHOULD go....no easy answers except "not in my backyard".....
I certainly don't back the Boston Harbor option, but it makes you wonder where these things SHOULD go....no easy answers except "not in my backyard".....
MSilvia
Contributor
Well, I guess we could ask all the folks on the Cape if they'd prefer one of these to the offshore wind farm they were all crying about. At least it wouldn't ruin the view.large_diver:
Yeah Lobstaman... if you don't want to see conservation areas despoiled, you don't deserve electricity. Right Stogey? Nevermind biodiesel, solar, hydroelectric, and the bazillion other ways to generate fuel and energy... if we can't get oil from cultural and ecologically sensitive areas we should all be prepared to go live in caves and start subsisting on grubs.STOGEY:
Incidentally, diving off of sailing vessels rocks!
If you've been reading the papers lately, there's been talk about rolling black outs during the winter. The first people who will complain will be the ones who are against the building of new power plants or fuel facilities such as the LNG facility that is being talked about here.
I too am very favorable towards newer and resusable types of energy such as solar power ect. However at the moment the most economically produced power supplies are either nuclear or, patroleum products such as natural gas or oil.
The people who are complaining the most about the use of these products seem the lease likely to put their squashes together and develop reusable products. They are waiting for some type of goernment backed program to get this into gear.
It is historically a fact that the government won't get the ball rolling it will take economically necessity and private intuition to get this working. It wasn't the government that first produced the air plane, or mass produce automobiles.
So when someone thinks that they can produce a newer type of energy that is economicaly feasible they will. We may see this in our life times or maybe not, but it will happen.
I too am very favorable towards newer and resusable types of energy such as solar power ect. However at the moment the most economically produced power supplies are either nuclear or, patroleum products such as natural gas or oil.
The people who are complaining the most about the use of these products seem the lease likely to put their squashes together and develop reusable products. They are waiting for some type of goernment backed program to get this into gear.
It is historically a fact that the government won't get the ball rolling it will take economically necessity and private intuition to get this working. It wasn't the government that first produced the air plane, or mass produce automobiles.
So when someone thinks that they can produce a newer type of energy that is economicaly feasible they will. We may see this in our life times or maybe not, but it will happen.
Dragon2115
Guest
Absolutely right Stogey. Hybrid cars didn't come around because of some government program. They came around because gasoline prices got high enough that consumers were willing to pay higher prices for the cars which made it economically viable for the companies to develop them. The ones that whine that the government should mandate and finance the development of this or that alternative fuel just haven't got a clue.
As for the LNG facility, the complaining will stop as soon as we're paying so much $$$$$ to heat our homes that we can't afford to do anything, like diving, anymore. Oh no, wait a minute, they'll just complain that it's Bush's fault then.
And speaking of Outter Brewster, I read in the article posted in the other thread that the island is such a "wonderful resource". What resouce is that exactly? Water is a resource, oil is a resource, timber is a resource. Outter Brewster is merely a rock with the relics of some 70 year old AA gun implacements on it that few people even bother to visit each year. BFD. What exactly is the historical significance of the site that it should be put first over the needs of several million people?
As for the LNG facility, the complaining will stop as soon as we're paying so much $$$$$ to heat our homes that we can't afford to do anything, like diving, anymore. Oh no, wait a minute, they'll just complain that it's Bush's fault then.
And speaking of Outter Brewster, I read in the article posted in the other thread that the island is such a "wonderful resource". What resouce is that exactly? Water is a resource, oil is a resource, timber is a resource. Outter Brewster is merely a rock with the relics of some 70 year old AA gun implacements on it that few people even bother to visit each year. BFD. What exactly is the historical significance of the site that it should be put first over the needs of several million people?
MASS-Diver
Contributor
Dragon2115:
It's one of the prettiest pieces of land I'ver ever seen, it's really sad that you can't see that. There's really not need to justify the right of this beautiful, wild piece of land to exist. Although come to think of it, what do any the harbor island "do for us?" Why not develope them all?
Lots of people place a high valve on the few wild spots we have left in this part of county, although perhaps ever more people, like you, merely see nature as something to be used by man as we need it. You are probably horrified that there are still "useless" trees left standing and I'm sure you are the type of guy that drives buy an "emtpy" space of land and is disgusted that no one has developed it.
I suspect from your post that you do not know anyone who makes their living from the sea? This piece of Ocean is very important to a large number of Lobsterman (and is why the Lobsterman are up in arms at this proposal) - I think they migh argue with your view of this area as not a resource.
Putting the LNG there isn't expected to have any impact on natural gas prices in the near future (even the company that's wants to build it isn't claiming that) - their angle is that it will provide some tax benefits (to Hull). The goal isn't to help "millions of people" - it's to make money for this company and its shareholders.
Dragon2115
Guest
MASS-Diver:
Absolutely, we should cut down every tree standing and pave over every single open piece of ground in sight. Ok, can we get past the "lets make the most moronic argument possible" approach?
First, I'll argue that there are far prettier locations that are far more deserving of protection that Outter Brewster. That is merely subject to the individuals opinion.
Second, you have no idea what I think so save your BS for somebody else. I do not favor developing a site such as Outter Brewster without very good reason. Not being able to meet the NG demands of a region and the resulting shortages does rank up htere on the list though. Reducing LNG tanker traffic in the inner harbor is up there too.
The lobstermen are up in arms over anything that will effect their over-fishing practices. I hate to tell them this but unlike a farmer, they don't OWN the land. They knew this going into their profession. If they're that upset tell them to file with the state for job retraining education. And speaking of which, maybe it would be a good thing if there were an area that they couldn't rape for every single keeper-size lobster they can get their hands on. Maybe with a protected area more lobsters would reach breeding size. Ever give THAT any thought?
The problem with people like you is that you can't think more than five minutes in front of your own face. Of course it won't lower prices in the near term, it'll keep them from going through the roof ten years from now. Not to mention it will immediately reduce LNG tanker traffic in the inner harbor. It won't eliminate it, unless this gives Mennino the ammo he needs to get Everett shut down for safety reasons, but it will reduce it.
You obviously have no experience in running a business if you're just coming to this conclusion. Of course they want to make a profit. And the way they make a profit is to supply NG to as many homes and businesses as they can. The demand is there. It will always be there. And by building a new facility they will be able to accomplish their goal while at the same time benefitting the area by increasing both capacity in the region and the safety in which LNG is delivered to the area.
Similar threads
