Proposed LNG facility in Boston Harbor Islands Nat'l Park

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

Joining is quick and easy. Log in or Register now!

Dragon2115:
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.



Duh! 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.

Wow....:11: Thats quite a response. Hey, don't hold back now, you're just getting warmed up!
 
Warning: Abusive posting and personal attacks are against the TOS. No matter how strong your viewpoint might be on this topic please find a way to express it politely.
 
By the way,

What is wrong with companies making money? I mean that is the reason why the majority of us work right? If companies didn't make a profit then there would be no reson to keep their doors open and employ their employees. Its the people that are living off of their trust funds, that expect the rest of us that don't have trust funds to live off, to live off of those trust funds that we don have to live off.
 
Nothing is wrong with companies making money, but how they make it is the question.

Was there something wrong with W.R. Grace company destroying the land around Woburn by using Woburn as a toxic waste dump? Heck , they were just trying to make a buck right? Don't let kids with lukemia get in the way of profit right?

Nothing wrong with cutting down the last stands of old-growth redwoods in California as long as they make money and serve the people by employing lumberjacks and making wood for Home Depot right?

It's all a matter of where you draw the line.
 
jchaplain:
Nothing wrong with cutting down the last stands of old-growth redwoods in California as long as they make money and serve the people by employing lumberjacks and making wood for Home Depot right?
right.

so what the problem.....

we need more chainsaws?
 
STOGEY:
Its the people that are living off of their trust funds, that expect the rest of us that don't have trust funds to live off, to live off of those trust funds that we don have to live off.

your insight concerning energy demand/supply, safety concerns, and land use priorities related to the siting of an LNG tanker terminal is certainly an intriguing perspective. Thanks for sharing.
 
Diesel298:
right.

so what the problem.....

we need more chainsaws?

Have you ever even been to Muir Woods or Sequoia National Park?
If you have been there and you have no appreciation, then that is sad.
Oh, but I guess maybe you were just being funny....hee haw?
 
jchaplain:
Nothing is wrong with companies making money, but how they make it is the question.

Was there something wrong with W.R. Grace company destroying the land around Woburn by using Woburn as a toxic waste dump? Heck , they were just trying to make a buck right? Don't let kids with lukemia get in the way of profit right?

Nothing wrong with cutting down the last stands of old-growth redwoods in California as long as they make money and serve the people by employing lumberjacks and making wood for Home Depot right?

It's all a matter of where you draw the line.

And the problem here is that this is where the debate always takes a turn toward the rediculous. Nobody is saying that it's ok for W.R.Grace to dump toxic waste into a waterway or even a ditch out behind the building so they can make a profit and I think you know that.
 
jchaplain:
Have you ever even been to Muir Woods or Sequoia National Park?
If you have been there and you have no appreciation, then that is sad.
Oh, but I guess maybe you were just being funny....hee haw?


yeah it was a attempt at humor.....
 
cyklon_300:
your insight concerning energy demand/supply, safety concerns, and land use priorities related to the siting of an LNG tanker terminal is certainly an intriguing perspective. Thanks for sharing.

Actually I think that if people are willing to put their heads together and compromise, there is probably a solution that would meet both the problem of energy and conservation out there.

But there are people on both sides of the fence tht are not willing to listen or work with the other side, and therefore not much gets done but a bunch of name calling and hand ringing.
 

Back
Top Bottom