AN AT-SEA LNG TERMINAL SHOULD BE A NO GO


The recently proposed liquefied natural gas (LNG) at-sea unloading site project off Massachusetts has raised the ire of many concerned interests, most notably the fishing industry.  This project would involve yet another pipeline from the unloading site and into a connection with the now functional Algonquin (Hubline) pipeline as it passes from Beverly to Weymouth.  Oh great, another pipeline through fishing bottom in Mass Bay.  We all know what fun the Hubline project turned out to be.  But that isn’t the worse part of the proposal.  What is even more ominus is the unloading site part.  Two of these “terminals” are being proposed and they would require an exclusionary zone around each of them.  There would be a continuous presence of 900-foot long super gas “bomb” tankers that would hitch themselves up to the unloading “hoses”.  These tankers would then convert the gas from a liquid form into a gas form and pump it into the pipeline.  The process uses either seawater or a self-contained water supply to heat the gas.  If sea water is used, and we’re talking here of millions of gallons of sea water, this process would pump in all types of small marine life and subject them to temperature changes and harsh chemicals.  The water and whatever else would then be discharged and be a lot colder then when it was taken in.  We wonder what all this does to the ecological balance in that area.  The other method, the so called “closed loop” water process, involves using gas to heat the water that has been stored on board which is then used to convert the colder gas shipment but this method is costly to the company.

 Getting back to the exclusionary zone part, we are disturbed by the fact that right now everyone uses this area for transit, fishing and other activities and yet this proposal would change this by allowing one company to take over the area for their exclusive use.  Lobster fishermen, for example, use this area, so do fin fishermen, shipping interests, boaters and recreational fishermen.  Displacing all these interests moves them to other areas and puts more pressure into those areas.  This no go exclusionary area would be permanent and this is another reason why this whole project should be a no go.

 A recently released paper from the Lloyds Insurance Group commented on this type of project as being very dangerous and having the potential for a catastrophic disaster if an accidental release of gas explodes.  Oh, yea – this is just what we need around here - !

 It continues to be disheartening to all fishermen that all these projects, the pipelines, windmills, sand mining, dumping and gas unloading all seem to be proposed for – out there somewhere in the ocean and away from people.  Don’t fishermen and boaters and mariners count?  The feeling always seems to be, who cares about “out there”.  All these projects just further upset the habitat and ecological balance needed for healthy marine resources and if they aren’t healthy, the fishermen get blamed and sanctioned.  No one seems to want to place blame on these projects and do something about them.

 We’re sorry if those on shore feel that they need more gas but its now our turn to be the NIMBY’S.  Not In My BackYard, thank you! Not in my very valuable and needed fishing grounds.  Our fishing industry and lobster industry in particular needs to be protected from this proposal and we would hope that our legislators and the administration would heed our concerns and support our needs.

 We would urge our Governor, who has the authority to kill this beast, to do so before this LNG project even starts to tread water.

 Where’s my bottle of GAS-X pills?  

Bill Adler
Executive Director                   

10/04