Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 21 to 37 of 37
  1. Member H22BASS250SHO's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Hester,Louisiana
    Posts
    799
    #21

    Quote Originally Posted by jlsch1 View Post
    They allowed stories about guides who were fishing private marsh to have stories written about them, and those same guides patrolled that marsh to run people off. They also promote CCA heavily and years ago were for LNG terminals in SW Louisiana along with CCA. They are not for sportsman and will skate around public access issue like CCA for the money.

    2018 21' GatorTrax Strike Series, 250 Yamaha SHO

  2. Member River-Bandit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Texas / Louisiana
    Posts
    6,569
    #22
    Quote Originally Posted by jlsch1 View Post
    They allowed stories about guides who were fishing private marsh to have stories written about them, and those same guides patrolled that marsh to run people off. They also promote CCA heavily and years ago were for LNG terminals in SW Louisiana along with CCA. They are not for sportsman and will skate around public access issue like CCA for the money.
    What is wrong with having LNG terminals ?

  3. Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Baton Rouge
    Posts
    929
    #23
    Kills the bull reds where they spawn offshore.
    my inside contact with CCA said they knew this.
    shell would donate marsh land for conservation to offset killing spawning grounds for redfish.
    Some money was said to change hands for their support.
    CCA and Louisiana Sportsman we’re pushing for LNG because shell basically paid them off.

  4. Member River-Bandit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Texas / Louisiana
    Posts
    6,569
    #24
    Quote Originally Posted by jlsch1 View Post
    Kills the bull reds where they spawn offshore.
    my inside contact with CCA said they knew this.
    shell would donate marsh land for conservation to offset killing spawning grounds for redfish.
    Some money was said to change hands for their support.
    CCA and Louisiana Sportsman we’re pushing for LNG because shell basically paid them off.
    Just trying to understand here,, you are saying that a spawning ground for reds is more important than the thousands of jobs and the millions and millions of dollars that building , operating and maintaining LNG terminals would provide for our state,, not to mention all the guys that are working on drilling rigs to drill for the natural gas that will be exported thru these terminals ,,,

  5. Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Baton Rouge
    Posts
    929
    #25
    These were offshore LNG’s which other states did not want.
    There is a reason they did not want them.
    The LNG would have been off the SW LA coast.
    If it was a great deal why did Texas block putting them in back then?
    I had a house at that time a few miles away no way did I want a Nuclear bomb basically sitting a few miles from my home.

    If you want the job then why not put it in your backyard?

    We all want jobs, when know Louisiana the nations dumping ground for the chemical industry, but when the risk outweigh the reward you have to look hard at passing it up.

  6. Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Prairieville, LA
    Posts
    412
    #26
    The LNG issue was not about having them in Louisiana waters. It was about the technology proposed for the gas liquification as opposed to much safer, slightly more expensive technology more friendly to fisheries. Shell and the other companies wanted to use the cheaper, more dangerous technology. The people who successfully fought the issue were for the LNG plants iF they used the safer technology.

  7. Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Baton Rouge
    Posts
    929
    #27
    Correct I lived down there at the time and the citizens had no issue with a safer way to operate the LNG.
    They did not like being not straight forward with all the information.
    CCA was trying to get locals like myself on board skating around the truth.

  8. Member BStrick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Denham Springs, La
    Posts
    3,155
    #28
    Yes the LNG was proposed as an open loop extraction facility where they would take in tons of gulf water, kill all the plankton/eggs when cooling super hot equipment. It would have created a major problem. I remember reading up on it when I was in college. They should have done a closed loop system. But that was going to cost a lot more. What ever happened with that?

    20XDC / Promax

  9. Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Baton Rouge
    Posts
    929
    #29
    They killed the permits after locals and people fought it.
    I believe the did approve land based LNG’s, not 100% sure as I sold my land right after Hurricane Rita hit.

  10. Member River-Bandit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Texas / Louisiana
    Posts
    6,569
    #30
    Quote Originally Posted by jlsch1 View Post
    I had a house at that time a few miles away no way did I want a Nuclear bomb basically sitting a few miles from my home.

    If you want the job then why not put it in your backyard?

    We all want jobs, when know Louisiana the nations dumping ground for the chemical industry, but when the risk outweigh the reward you have to look hard at passing it up.
    Sir, you live in Baton Rouge you are surrounded by bombs on ever side of you and below your feet ,,one more will not matter except it will put money in the back pocket for folks needing good paying jobs

    As far as my backyard,, you can put what ever you want as long as you pay me ,, hell I have had a refinery or chemical plant of some kind in my backyard all my life ,

  11. Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Baton Rouge
    Posts
    929
    #31
    Those LNG’s were bad news for the area.
    I lived there at the time , I had a say as a homeowner, the community had a say, and it did not pass.
    CCA, Louisiana Sportsman, and Shell tried to spin it differently.
    They tried to slam something down a community’s throat that did not want it.

    I do not feel a bit sorry for someone else that did not gain a marketable skill to be use outside an industry that is not willing to move or change skill sets when the industry changes.
    We all had choices in life and if you do not change with the market or times you will be left behind.
    If you are or were laid off sorry that not my problem. You have the ability to change career paths or find a new job in the same field.
    I have been laid off in the oil industry.
    I gained a new skill moving on to something new away from the petro chemical/ oil industry to not ride the ups and downs.
    I would never slam something down a community’s throat that they choose to not want just to have a job.

    As far as living in EBRP choose to live here and know the positives and negatives presently in this parish.
    A year or two ago people in this parish pushed for the rezoning of the port of BR to keep a barge cleaning company out.
    I respected their right to do this as they lived next to it versus the jobs it would bring.
    This was their area of the community and enough of the people in that area did not want it.

  12. Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Location
    Luling, Louisiana
    Posts
    165
    #32
    I believe the did approve land based LNG’s, not 100% sure as I sold my land right after Hurricane Rita hit.

    I'm not sure i'm following a 100% but i just worked on 2 LNG projects over the past couple years. One in Freeport Texas and another in Cameron, LA. Both land based.
    2009 Ranger Z520, Mercury 250 ProXS

  13. Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Prairieville, LA
    Posts
    412
    #33
    The LNG projects in Freeport and Cameron are liquification plants for export and do not pose a threat. The former projects were going to import LNG, gassify it, and put it in the pipeline. The method proposed to convert the liquid to gas was the issue. The companies lied and said it would not be profitable using the more expensive technology. Then Governor Blanco reviewed quite a bit of information and actually vetoed the permit for Freeport McMoran using the open loop technology. I think I remember correctly that they immediately reapplied using closed loop technology, confirming the fact that it was a maximizing profit issue, not a profit or loss issue.

    All the projects were cancelled when fracking produced so much gas the price dropped low enough to eliminate the justification for the projects. Now there are plants being built to liquify and export.

  14. Member River-Bandit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Texas / Louisiana
    Posts
    6,569
    #34
    Quote Originally Posted by jlsch1 View Post
    I do not feel a bit sorry for someone else that did not gain a marketable skill to be use outside an industry that is not willing to move or change skill sets when the industry changes.
    We all had choices in life and if you do not change with the market or times you will be left behind.
    If you are or were laid off sorry that not my problem. You have the ability to change career paths or find a new job in the same field.
    I have been laid off in the oil industry.
    I gained a new skill moving on to something new away from the petro chemical/ oil industry to not ride the ups and downs.
    I would never slam something down a community’s throat that they choose to not want just to have a job.
    So from reading your post you think that as long as you are doing ok then to hell with everybody else

    I'm retired form the oil industry , Does not effect me in the least one way or the other, and i was not talking about oil field jobs in particular,,, I want to see all forms of jobs in our state, construction, plant , financial , retail , oilfield , pipeline ect. ect. our state needs good paying jobs so folks can have a quality way of life , I want to see our people and our state prosper simple as that,, and these huge projects bring with them good paying jobs both short and long term ,, people like you bitch about the oil companies and how evil they are and want them to leave have no clue how much money and jobs they bring to our great state
    Last edited by River-Bandit; 04-20-2018 at 06:25 AM.

  15. Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    178
    #35
    Well good bye public sportsman's paradise. If any of you want to donate to my next fishing trip I'm taking donations. I hear if you rent out a lease you can fish in the sportsman's paradise. Man I hope my tax dollars doesn't go to helping land owners rebuild their land from erosion. Oh wait....that happens... Well I hope my tax dollars doesn't go to making someone else's dream of being able to fish without interruption... Oh wait.. well my kids will be able to... Nope.. only if you know someone with a lease... Hmm but water is public being able to be used by all.. nope... So Ill have to buy some land and make a canal that way I can take public resources all to myself and say noone can come in. LMAO the funniest piece of shit people we have right here in Louisiana. Guess all that norther shit came down the river and really filled in.

  16. Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    21
    #36
    well, looks like we can discontinue our support of Ducks Unlimited also..... CCA and the rest are only interested in where the "Big" money is...... pennies add up to dollars guys, there can be a difference if most don't support these organizations any longer....

  17. Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Baton Rouge
    Posts
    929
    #37
    I am for jobs also have an understanding of balancing environment with taking raw materials from the environment.
    At the time I managed timber land in South East Texas. My group balanced cutting timber while maintaining forest for future generations of workers in the timber industry, future demand at mills, limit impact on wildlife, and keep the hunters happy.
    We did not cut 100% of our land, nor do they do it today to harm wildlife to save money or produce jobs.
    There is a balance you have to maintain to keep the eco system in balance and still provide jobs.

    This seems to be way way way above your head.
    A few months after they would have started Hurricane Rita hit the area.
    If the offshore LNG was in place and caused even more damage they would have possibly shut down more of the gas industry in the area hurting more people’s jobs.
    I guess you small brain could not comprehend that hurting the chance for responsible land based LNG’s in the area could have hurt future jobs. This is beyond your comprehension though.
    You maybe for raping of the environment for temp jobs today.
    Down the road this comes back to eventually hurt industries, communities, and future jobs if not managed correctly.

    I also do not feel giving Shell or any company card blanche to destroy an environment to save a few bucks when other profitable options were available was a good option for the community I lived in.
    There were other companies at the time willing to invest in safer LNG processes along with providing similar amount of jobs in the same community with less damage to the ecosystem. These projects also did not have push back from the community and are in the parish today.

    BP took risk they should not have and the horizon blew up hurting more jobs than just the oil industry.

    CCA did not use science or balancing of the eco system when the sided with Shell Royal Dutch on a bad project.
    Last edited by jlsch1; 04-26-2018 at 09:47 AM.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12