Scuttlebutt Website SCUTTLEBUTT
SAILING NEWS
ForumIndex CLASSIFIED ADS Search Posts SEARCH
POSTS
Who's Online WHO'S
ONLINE
Log in LOG IN         

Forum Index: .: Dock Talk:
LNG Terminals?
Team McLube

 



blowboater
***

Nov 3, 2005, 10:00 AM

Post #1 of 11 (21646 views)
Shortcut
LNG Terminals? Log-In to Post/Reply

For the life of me, I cannot fathom how LNG terminals in our busiest waterways will not dramtically alter sailing....the exclusion rules seem prohibitive to normal navigation.


USA8016
***

Nov 3, 2005, 10:32 AM

Post #2 of 11 (21641 views)
Shortcut
Re: [blowboater] LNG Terminals? [In reply to] Log-In to Post/Reply

Agreed, it seems like they would be non-starters....but they are still moving forward!


hourglass
*

Nov 3, 2005, 12:17 PM

Post #3 of 11 (21626 views)
Shortcut
Re: [USA8016] LNG Terminals? [In reply to] Log-In to Post/Reply

On the bright side, there won't be oil slicks in case of an accident. Maybe some toasted powerboats...


duckydinghy
***

Nov 4, 2005, 10:32 AM

Post #4 of 11 (21586 views)
Shortcut
Re: [hourglass] LNG Terminals? [In reply to] Log-In to Post/Reply

In Narragansett Bay they would have to shut down any boating activity a couple of times a month to get the tankers up to the terminal. Don't see how this is remotely possible...a guy happens to push off from shore on his boat at the wrong time and finds himself breaking the law?


PaulK
****


Nov 4, 2005, 7:13 PM

Post #5 of 11 (21567 views)
Shortcut
Re: [duckydinghy] LNG Terminals? [In reply to] Log-In to Post/Reply

Let's see... One in Boston (in addition to the one already there), one in Narragansett Bay, one in Maine somewhere, and one in Long Island Sound. These guys are all going to be getting supplied several times weekly, according to what I've heard, not monthly. It's likely they'll mess traffic up quite a bit. New Federal regulations (the Energy Bill) passed by YOUR favorite people in Washington and signed by your favorite Environmental Protector in the Oval Office exempt them from the standard procedures and state regulations, and put them on a fast track. When we run out of LNG we'll be left with rusting hulks, like so many abandoned gas stations, with whatever poisons our Fearless Leaders have allowed them to use leaching into our air and water. Brilliant way to make a buck!


No Rumours
**

Nov 6, 2005, 11:58 AM

Post #6 of 11 (21541 views)
Shortcut
Re: [duckydinghy] LNG Terminals? [In reply to] Log-In to Post/Reply

There are many arguments for and against new petrochemical plants, and LNG terminals certainly are included, but disrupting boating traffic's a non-starter.

You may remember (and you may not) that every waterway in America was subject to complete and random closure during the aftermath of 9/11, as naval assets passed through, back and through again, yet somehow yachting survived.

There will be lots of saber rattling about LNG terminals, but moving LNG ships at night, or on any regular schedule will render boating problems very largely moot. If you don't want the terminals in your town, that's fine, but crying "It messes up my club's racing schedule" isn't going to find very many non-yachting allies, IMO.

NR


PaulK
****


Nov 6, 2005, 6:14 PM

Post #7 of 11 (21533 views)
Shortcut
Re: [No Rumours] LNG Terminals? [In reply to] Log-In to Post/Reply

Closing major East Coast thoroughfares (Narragansett Bay, Boston Harbor, Long Island Sound at the Race) to the passage to any and all other vessels because one company wants to bring in it's product is going to affect a lot more than just yacht racing. With supplies of gasoline as tight as they are, for example, let's say a tug & barge going up the coast to Rhode Island misses the tide because they have to wait for an LNG ship to clear. Does your gas station on US 1 run out of fuel because of this? Maybe not, (or if things are REALLY tight, maybe so!) but perhaps the cost at the pump goes up because they have to pay the crew overtime when the barge arrives late at night. There are lots of repercussions. Perhaps it would be better to make more efficient use of existing termnals. A cooperative clearing house for incoming LNG could coordinate arrivals, usage, and distribution instead of having multiple private companies duplicating problems all up and down the coast. The Supreme Court has just made a case for taking property for a public/private enterprise (in New London, CT). Why not set up a quasi-governmental board to control LNG (isn't it a National Security issue?) and have them take over existing plants. We might then not "need" so many new ones.


blowboater
***

Nov 7, 2005, 3:44 AM

Post #8 of 11 (21523 views)
Shortcut
Re: [PaulK] LNG Terminals? [In reply to] Log-In to Post/Reply

Er, Paul...no one mentioned anything about "messing up my club's racing scehdule".

Mostly, it is interesting to discuss the actual logistics of supplying LNG terminals given the exlcusion zone which would require an unfathomable coordination and disruption to what happens today. Not sure if you have actually seen a busy waterway where the tankers would sail, but the "exlusion zone" (where they clear the area 1/2 mile to either side, 1 mile behind and 3 miles in front) would seem to require that all boating of any kind stop across highly poluated areas, including morring fields. Word is that they would even have to close the Newport bridge when a tanker went through.

How they gonna clear all that?


TackGybe
***

Nov 7, 2005, 6:13 AM

Post #9 of 11 (21516 views)
Shortcut
Re: [blowboater] LNG Terminals? [In reply to] Log-In to Post/Reply

They can't possibly do it! The only one that looks feasible is the one on Long Island Sound, which is projected to be in the middle of a big patch of water.

The one on Narragasett Bay would shut down the Newport Bridge once a week for an hour! Talk about disruptive!


No Rumours
**

Nov 7, 2005, 1:28 PM

Post #10 of 11 (21501 views)
Shortcut
Re: [TackGybe] LNG Terminals? [In reply to] Log-In to Post/Reply


In Reply To
They can't possibly do it! The only one that looks feasible is the one on Long Island Sound, which is projected to be in the middle of a big patch of water.

The one on Narragasett Bay would shut down the Newport Bridge once a week for an hour! Talk about disruptive!

Tuesday mornings, say from 3:00 to 4:00 AM is going to be how disruptive? This same sort of thing has been done many times, for things like nuclear waste on rails, to petroleum trucks through tunnels and over bridges, for many decades. Where there's a will there's a way. And there's plenty of will...

NR





msherman
***

Nov 8, 2005, 4:02 AM

Post #11 of 11 (21473 views)
Shortcut
Re: [No Rumours] LNG Terminals? [In reply to] Log-In to Post/Reply

Re: Tuesday mornings, say from 3:00 to 4:00 AM is going to be how disruptive?

Last I heard the scheduling was variable and during mostly high traffic hours. But that might be one-sided bad press. That being said, I can imagine that there it is non-trival to shut down a major commercial waterway at any time, not to mention the only road/Newport Bridge to fire trucks, ambulances, etc.

I assume that any in-seaon 3-4 am has more than a few fisherman and harbor tour joy riders. What do they do, sweep the area with big lights and patrol boats? Not that those recreation folks would be a big problem, but just how does the CG actually enforce that?





Viewing the Forums: No members and guests
 


Search for (options) Contact Forum Forum FAQS Markup Tags Forum Rules