As most of us know, the MLA opposes the whole project for many reasons a major one being that we do not believe that one company should be allowed to reserve an area in the ocean waters where access to lobster fishing as well as all other users could be permanently prohibited. If approved, a Coast Guard exclusionary zone around the unloading site would be established for security reasons and this area could be very large.

 We have learned recently that our governor supposedly favors the idea of allowing the LNG proposal and as we also know the governor does have the ability to veto such a project. This obviously was not a good piece of information from our standpoint. Mitt, please say it ain’t so!

 In looking at the problems relating to this whole fiasco and aside from our concerns about the pipeline construction and access to our fishing grounds, there are other serious environmental and resource issues that are surfacing regarding the project. Far away in the Gulf of Mexico an examination of these same types of projects have now exposed some complications which could have detrimental effects on the waters, the fisheries, and the general ecosystem.

 Let’s look at the regasification process for example. This is the “open-loop” or “closed-loop” debate which is continuing down in the Gulf. Neither process looks very good. Warm water is needed to heat the gas from its frozen state to a gas state before it enters the pipe. The water can be seawater or ship held water. The water held in the ship needs to be heated, using gas, to get the job done. It has been suggested that up here since the seawater is cold, the closed loop system would be used. The Environmental Protection Agency however, in the Gulf debate has noted that the closed loop system “is not adequately analyzed as an alternative technology”. The gas companies also contend that this method is too expensive for them since they use up some of their cargo to heat the water that heats the gas. They further indicated down in the Gulf that they might abandon the whole deal if they’re forced to use this method, which as mentioned, is not even ready to be used.

 So where are we here. It would seem logical that the same increased costs would also apply if that method were to be used up here where the water is cold and if that method was to be “adequately analyzed”. As for the open loop seawater method, forget it. That’s even worse.

 There are some other problems as well. The closed loop method has higher emissions. Remember air quality? It takes longer to unload; tankers backed up waiting to access the site? The process still discharges over 32,000 gallons per minute of seawater used by the condensers and this will be warmer then the ocean water. Are we keeping count here? What does all this do for our ocean resources?

 It has been noted that in the Gulf, fishery impacts will be localized, however, “localized” down there means, according to the   EPA report, water off Mississippi and Alabama. What would “localized” fishery impacts be up here, all Massachusetts waters in the Gulf of Maine? Our ocean area is more confined then in the Gulf of Mexico. Could this mean the elimination of lobster and fish larvae, plankton and whatever else lives in our waters? If anyone of these negative impacts were to occur, our coastal fishing communities both Commercial and recreational could be devastated. Is the Bay State willing to take this risk?

 If more natural gas is needed, perhaps these companies could reexamine the idea of using an existing unloading site in Canada and an existing pipeline from there to here. The savings from not building this site could be used to cover any increased costs in using those in-place and functioning facilities to get the gas to Massachusetts.

 This whole majestic plan as proposed, to put it bluntly, “stinks” and our fishing industries here in Massachusetts should not have to feel that they’ve been “gassed” by our own Bay State.

 I need another bottle of Gas-X pills.

  Bill Adler
Executive Director                               

6/05