Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Fwd: Boston City Council Needs to Hear Why LNG on Outer Brewster is a Bad Idea

Expand Messages
  • Bill Scanlon
    Save The Brewsters wrote: From: Save The Brewsters To: Save The Brewsters
    Message 1 of 1 , Nov 16 4:54 PM
      Save The Brewsters <savethebrewsters@...> wrote:
      From: "Save The Brewsters" <savethebrewsters@...>
      To: "Save The Brewsters" <savethebrewsters@...>
      Subject: Boston City Council Needs to Hear Why LNG on Outer Brewster is a Bad Idea
      Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2006 18:11:44 -0500

      On Nov. 14, 2006 , the Public Safety Committee of the Boston City Council held the second of two hearings on the topic of LNG tankers in Boston Harbor . It appears, as a result of (or perhaps in spite of) these hearings, that some council members believe that by asking the State Legislature to revive and pass the now moribund H 4500 legislation allowing AES to build an LNG terminal on Outer Brewster Island, the State would be able to force Distrigas to close the Everett LNG terminal.
      The only reason these two ideas are linked is because AES thinks that by doing so they can build support for their bad idea. As we know, AES is not proposing an alternative to Distrigas’s Everett facility, but rather a second LNG terminal in Boston Harbor . Nonetheless, AES’s hired consultant, Richard Clarke, has testified at both City Council hearings, comparing the potential damage an LNG explosion would have on the city of Boston with one on Outer Brewster, specifically mentioning the schools that overlook Outer Brewster. His conclusion is that the damage in Boston Harbor would be “catastrophic”, whereas the damage to Outer Brewster would be “insignificant”.
      Clarke completely underestimates the consequences of an LNG explosion on Outer Brewster Island , because he conveniently disregards the fact that the construction of an LNG terminal and regasification plant on the island would be tremendously destructive to a federally protected park and recreation area, home to numerous endangered species of birds, and the only colony of seals in Boston Harbor , located at the mouth of Boston Harbor , and within spitting distance of the oldest manned lighthouse in the country.
      During the hearings, no other offshore facility proposed was discussed, despite the fact that numerous other projects have already been proposed in New England and are much farther along in the review process. Committee Chairman Stephen Murphy said his understanding was that the proposed terminal on Outer Brewster Island was "the only alternative" to bringing tankers to the Distrigas facility in Everett .  We and others testified that this was not the case, but the council really needs to hear from other concerned citizens.
      Please take a moment, particularly if you live or work in Boston , to email the city council and respectfully remind them that:
      • Outer Brewster Island is protected land, a crucial part of the Brewster Islands ecosystem and the Boston Harbor Islands National Recreation Area.
      • Although the City Council is doing its job by taking a look at the Distrigas Facility, building another LNG terminal in Boston Harbor, particularly one that is a) in a National Park and b) near a population center, is not the right way to reduce the hazards of LNG.
      • The Public and the City Council need not be rushed or bullied by the timeline of AES’s business plan into adopting ill-informed judgments. (In July, when the State’s LNG Siting Commission issued a report seemingly endorsing the Outer Brewster proposal, eleven of the 18 members immediately dissented from its recommendations because they were not based on a thorough or balanced review of the facts. Five members insisted their names be removed from the report if they had no chance to amend it, and five others said it failed to analyze numerous safety and environmental issues. State Senator Robert Hedlund called the report “blatantly suspicious”. Representative Brian Dempsey who chaired the commission, was the sole sponsor of HB No 4500 proposing Outer Brewster as an LNG terminal.) If the LNG Siting Commission, after months of research, cannot come to a conclusion, how can the Boston City Council, without due diligence, rush to endorse any LNG terminal, much less a second one in Boston Harbor?
      • The Outer Brewster Island proposal should be rejected, and we should move on to seriously figure out what the region’s energy needs are and what the best ways are to meet them.
      You can help the Boston City Council become better informed by emailing them at: city.council@...; calling them at 617.635.3040, or faxing a letter to 617.635.4203.
      Thank you for your continued support.
      Save The Brewsters
      savethebrewsters.org – savethebrewsters@...
      26 Vautrinot Ave., Hull, MA 02045 - 781-925-6167

      Bill Scanlon
      USCG Master 50 GT Inland Waters
      Towing & Sailing Endorsements
      Lic. # 1092926
      1984 Catalina 30
      Std. Rig  Hull#  3688
      Winthrop (Mass.) Yacht Club
      Navigare necesse est, vivere non est necesse

      Check out the all-new Yahoo! Mail beta - Fire up a more powerful email and get things done faster.
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.