09-17-2005, 07:37 AM
Anyone see the hedlines in today's Patriot Ledger "PLAN FLOATED FOR LNG TANKS ON ISLAND 2 MILES OFF HULL". Could you imagine the security and how this would adversly effect not only fishing but the beauty of the Harbor Islands National Park? Seth Kaplan of the CLF states "the island could be the right place for an LNG terminal". What is wrong with the people here who propose this stuff? On the positive side of things, it would create jobs and take the transits away from heavily populated areas like East Boston and Charlestown as the areas energy demands continue to grow in the northeast. This is going to be very interesting and folks thought windmills were a bad idea?


09-17-2005, 12:25 PM
I say why not. Better than having them right on the main land. We need more refineries (oil) and other means of power too. But everyone is " NOT IN MY BACKYARD" I say put up the windmills and install the gas tanks. For that matter build some more nuclear reactors. We (america as a whole) depend way too heavily on the Middle East for its oil. Somethings have to change or we will be in deep doo-doo in a few years.

09-18-2005, 06:18 AM
in my opinion ....we are already "in" deep doo doo. (not that it can't or won't be getting worse) inflation hasn't even really escalated yet,as a result of doubling our deficit after hurricane Katrina's
onslaught. the cost of living has already reached most people's breaking point.

i've heard prices for a cord of wood has reached $270.00 dollars per cord.
1 freakin tomatoe already costs two dollars. the Minimum wage hasn't changed,
and when is the last time the nation has a whole has recieved a cost of living increase in their Pay... it's been ages.

09-18-2005, 02:09 PM
I think they should build an offloading platform in deep water away from the islands. That will shut down alot of productive water....

Squid kids Dad
09-18-2005, 03:06 PM
Its all about the MONEY !!!!

09-21-2005, 08:32 AM

I think that plan is unrealistic.

There is no doubt we need more terminals in NE. And you have the NIMBY theory everywhere. I don't have a chart in front of me but this would require some dredging and would really have to be on the Northern side. As Dave said this really would mess up the beuaty of the harbor. There is not enough room really for a tank farm so this would have to be just a pumping terminal. And the security, forgot about fishing within a half mile of it. So there goes lots of nice territory near the spit in tight. To the west in the skinny water of Flying Places at the east of GB. It is going to take allot of underground/water piping etc so why not have an offshore bouy terminal say out by the B bouy. This is done routinely for ULCC's and VLCC's that draw 80 feet of water and can never enter port unless MT. I'm just not sure about the maximum distance that you can pump it in liquid form and have it still remain a liquid without either a boil off point to keep it cool, or refrigeration. Would take a long time to move it as a gas and then condense it again. Sorry to get too technical in my thinking. I think it can be done offshore though as with crude.

LNG ships are very safe, they would be even safer if the ships were American Ships with American crews that speak fluent English, but that is another story that I could go on and on about. Basically we regulated ourselves out of the industry and made it more profitable to use foreign flag vessels.

Just really have to worry about the nut with an RPG. But if offshore 5 miles outside the outer harbor well now he needs a boat too.

11-10-2005, 06:28 AM
Have you seen that Reps (D) Dempsey from Haverhill and others from Springfield and western MA think this is a great idea. Sure, they don't fish here or live in the area. It is amazing how Dempsey is trying to pass a bill which will only allow one company to bid on the project. Somethings fishy here and it stinks.