WHAT IS THIS OBSESSION WITH LNG – NOT A GOOD THING
 

LNG (liquefied natural gas) suppliers are looking at numerous areas, for development of terminal locations for the delivery of LNG, via large transport vessels.  Cove Point was just the beginning and now we are watching as Sparrows Point, on the Patapsco Maryland, Crown Landing Logan Township on the Delaware River in New Jersey and Port Richmond on the Delaware River in Pennsylvania become targets for big money investors.  These projects are likely to start a national debate about the suitability of locating liquefied-natural-gas facilities in urban populated areas. In every area of interest, FERC and local politicians are holding “Town Meeting” in an effort to soften the fears and set up the public for the final blow.  These panels want you to think it’s OK to close the waterway numerous times a week, for hours on end.  The tankers are safe and the risk in minimal.

 

LNG is a liquid form of methane, a flammable gas.  LNG tankers require added layers of security to protect them on waterways from other vessels and terrorism.  As to the concern over what would happen if a tanker carrying LNG were damaged, either in an accident or by terrorist, the shipping industry sites the safety records.  The shipping industry has handled LNG with a solid safety record stating there have been no tanker accidents in 40 years and 33,000 voyages.  They never talk about the occurrences of plant facility destruction.  We never lost the Twin Towers until terrorist.

 

However, public hearings on the subject have reveled that if a tanker were damaged and a spill resulted, the liquid cargo would boil into a flammable vapor cloud covering a wide area possibly many miles wide.  When this explodes and burns, nothing would be left in the affected area. Our State and Federal elected officials must protect the public from the scorching industrialist that will total disrupt normal life along our wonderful waterways and shorelines.

 

Waterway users such as recreational boaters are heavily impacted by strict rules of navigation when LNG tankers are moving or docked at the plant facilities.  The question is not only if such large tankers should be allowed to transit a waterway in densely populated areas but also should terminals be located in urban areas.  These projects may be out of the control of local and state governments.

Even if the projects passed the scrutiny of local and state governments, the company would have to win the approval of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) as it is the final authority in chain of approvals.  Interestingly, even if local and state Councils and the residents of a state do not what the facility, FERC may impose Federal power to override local and states governments. 

 

The Coast Guard must decide whether the area was suitable for handling the tankers. On that matter, a short time ago, the local Coast Guard unit in Philadelphia told BP the precautions it demand in place for securing LNG tankers at the Logan Township proposed site.  Before approval, BP must indicate who will pay for those added security procedures, including procedures of Coast Guard escorts.  Officials have stated that BP obviously can't pay the Coast Guard for additional security escorts and there will have to be some public funding. That public funding will come out of Tax dollars of the very citizens against the projects.

 

The impact of any LNG shipping on a narrow body of water in a densely populated area has a significant impact on the quality of life.  It affects the constant fear and anxiety of the general population.  It is disruptive to community activities both on land and water.  Effectively it forms a blockade of all conveyances on bridges, roadways and waterways thereby inflicting a social impact to the entire community, an impact that has not been address as an economic impact.  Recreational and industrial vessels travel will be impacted for extended periods of time thereby reducing value to investments and recreation of the waterway.  Vessels attempting to make travel at specific tides will be dramatically affected.  Property owners in the area will loose valuable investment opportunities.  In some cases serious dredging necessary for the port will disturb dangerous toxins and pollute fishing grounds. ------------------Simply stated, the cost does not offset the benefits either economically or socially.  An alternative must be found at a remote location where the impact is the least dangerous and disruptive.

 

 

Respectfully submitted,

 

Jerry Donofrio Sr.

Commodore

Dear Delegate, 

    I urge you to reconsider your support of House Bill 140 requiring the mandatory use of Personal Floatation Devices (PFDs) by all operators and passengers of all recreational vessels.

     As a former Safety Officer and Vessel Examiner with the Annapolis Sail & Power Squadron and a father of four, I have an abiding interest is safe boating practices and in the study of the conditions that lead to accidents and injury on the water.

     The accident statistics simply do not support the need to expand existing regulations. Those incidents that are the most costly in lives and that capture the headlines tend to involve commercial vessels carrying passengers for hire -- such as last year's tragedy in Baltimore Harbor. The proposed bill does nothing to reduce such incidents.

     Without a doubt, pleasure boating is an inherently safe activity when approached with skill and an attitude of responsibility.  But in fact, such regulations as the proposed Bill discourage the development of safe boating practices and encourage a false sense of security. They also diminish the enjoyment of the sport -- of which physical comfort and freedom are a major part -- and can turn people away from boating. This can have a major impact on an industry which is a significant part of our state's economy.

     Our experience has shown that public education and training go much further in developing skill and responsibility than does this type of regulation; whereas state-mandated training (which exists now for young boaters) and even licensing can have a far greater impact. The fact that a person can buy a vessel and operate it in Maryland without the slightest training or demonstration of proficiency is a far more serious issue than focusing on a specific safety device.

     There is also a sizeable industry in boating safety equipment, which already far exceeds the risks when compared to activities such as skiing. That industry's efforts at developing compact, comfortable PFDs and other devices has greatly increased their use and the overall safety of boating and will continue to do so. Combined with regulations already in place, this is one area in which the market really is serving the public good.

    The cost to the state of enforcing this law will far exceed its benefits and distract the Department of Natural Resources from more important activities. A better application of those funds would be a public information campaign and the support of non-governmental organizations such as the Coast Guard Auxiliary, the Chesapeake Bay Yacht Clubs Association and the U.S. Sail & Power Squadrons in Maryland.

     Boaters talking to boaters --"pier" pressure -- will save more lives than legislation. 

Sincerely,

Emil Gallina

1623 Cherrystone Drive

Edgewater, MD 21037

Well stated Emil - Commodore Donofrio

CBYCA should reconsider your position on PDF all the time for only children.

With the new auto inflatables it is not too hard for adults to wear one too.

I am a good swimmer and I got dumped overboard in 50 degree water when a "friend" pushed the throttle forward. while I was tending lines on the fantail.  Luckly he also rapidly moved it back to neutral and was able to fish me out in about 10 minutes.  If I was alone or if he did not know how to stop the boat quickly I would have been a gooner.  Winter clothing weighs one down and the shock of cold water is something to experience only once!!.

I would recommend wearing a PFD whenever a boat is underway.  ESPECIALLY WHEN ONE IS ALONE!

Joe Martin 202 374 0350 For Weather @ Swan Point http://sptwx.home.comcast.net

 

=====================================

Thanks for your comments Joe,

The wearing of a PFD is a personal choice.  Your experience is 1 out of 1,000,000 occurrences.  I to know of people who have died in the water and generally this has occurred as in your case, while at dockside, moving to another vessel such as a dingy or maneuvering. 

 

Any time the water is cold or your working in a dangerous position or conditions, it is a wise choice to wear a pfd or inflatable.  This is an education problem and not a PFD problem, in my opinion.  In your case, the captain should have had you wear a pfd do to the water conditions.  Most accidents happen because of operator error. 

 

The inflatable is an option and have owned mine for over six years.  The only time I use it is in the dingy. That choice was a personal one and most people can not afford to purchase 10 of these for their boat.  Moreover, very few people have died falling off a boat underway, especially on boats over 26 feet.

Commodore Donofrio

Back to Top

Carl Reitz, Commodore              Hunter Sailing Association Station One