Tuesday, November 21, 2006

Broadwater Coverage From Around the Region

Here are today's news stories, and one editorial, about the Broadwater environmental impact statement. One thing for opponents to keep in mind is that this is a nine inning game, and we're only in the fifth inning. And late in the game is when interesting and crazy things can happen.

LNG report called ‘whitewash’
New Haven Register

State Attorney General Richard Blumenthal and a New Haven-based environmental group are calling on New York state officials to deny the developer of the Broadwater liquefied natural gas plant permission to moor it.

Agency Backs LNG Terminal
Hartford Courant

The proposed Broadwater natural gas terminal could operate safely and would not have a significant environmental impact on Long Island Sound, the federal ...

TransCanada, Shell a step closer to LNG go-ahead
Globe and Mail - Canada

... some analysts are questioning the planned boom in North American LNG projects, saying there simply isn't the global supply to underpin all the construction plans worldwide.

Broadwater Proposal Gets Preliminary Nod From FERC
TheDay - New London

While highly favorable of the proposal, the 828-page report also identifies 79 steps Broadwater should take to reduce its impact on the environment. These range from coordinating with the New York environmental officials about how to avoid impacts on wildlife to consulting with federal wildlife and marine fisheries agencies to following specific guidelines for construction and design.

The Energy Conundrum
The Day - New London

The opposition to the Broadwater project is as vocal as the anger that is gathering in the state over past and future increases in electric rates. Unfortunately, Connecticut's policy makers prefer not to connect the two, the high cost of energy in the state and the need for new sources of energy. Connecticut, for all intents and purposes, has no workable energy policy, and to add to the problem, neither does the federal government.

The Broadwater project is but another emblem of this conundrum, a monstrosity that would add to the manmade clutter in Long Island Sound. Broadwater ... makes a reasonable case that with its LNG terminal 10 miles offshore from Connecticut, it can supply cleaner-burning fuel than coal and oil at a lower cost to energy consumers and to the environment than the market status quo. The project would ameliorate the threat to air quality posed by the state's “Sooty Six” generating plants and pave the way for cleaner, less expensive energy generation in the state. ...

All of what the company says is true, just as it is true that the LNG project would further despoil Long Island Sound....

Regulators: Gas terminal would have minimal effect on environment
Stamford Advocate

The draft report by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission sparked immediate criticism from opponents of the project, including Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal, Connecticut Sen. Joe Lieberman and the Connecticut Fund for the Environment.

Opponents said they would submit written comments and appear at public meetings scheduled for January to challenge the report on Broadwater Energy's proposal. Blumenthal said he was prepared to take the issue to court if necessary.

"The FERC report is a whitewash," Blumenthal said. "Broadwater would be an unnecessary monstrosity permanently defacing and degrading Long Island Sound, another abhorrent step toward industrialization of this priceless natural resource and national treasure." ...

Officials from Broadwater Energy, a consortium of Shell Oil and TransCanada Corp., said they were pleased with the draft report, calling it a significant breakthrough for the project.

"It's a key milestone," said company senior vice president John Hritcko. "It confirms what we've been saying all along."

Officials: Proposed broadwater terminal safe

The report is a victory for Houston-based Broadwater Energy Inc., but its project still faces additional federal and state and possible Suffolk County scrutiny, as well as intense political opposition on both sides of the Sound. "We should recognize that they still have a long way to go," said Rep. Tim Bishop (D-Southampton), an opponent.


Blogger Sam said...

Tom, you mentioned in an off-line email that you had the entire EIS on a CD disk. Could you please send me the main section on air quality from the operations?

Next, you mentioned that a biocide would be used and that it was sodium hypochlorite, or 'Clorox' laundry bleach. A second chemical would be used to neutralize the oxidizing agent. Please let us know what that second reagent is because eventually tons of it will end up in Long Island Sound.

I am still missing something here, speaking as an air quality specialist. If folks are regulating gas cans, vapors in cosmetics and paint, and all kinds of stuff just to get a few tons of reductions to achieve the ozone and particulate standards ... why the heck are we adding what is essentially a new power plant just for a LNG facility? That one facility would probably be equivalent to a few million car trips a day.

The sheer amount of CO2 from the ships, regassification boilers, fugitive methane, and pumps would be enough to knock your hat in the proverbial creek. /Sam

12:13 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home

eXTReMe Tracker