The Case Against Liquefied Natural Gas in Long Island Sound

A proposal by Trans Canada and Shell US to build a large Liquefied Natural Gas Floating Storage and Regasification plant in the Broadwater area of the Long Island Sound was a challenge to all concerned.

This Broadwater project as it is called, seems to have been well prepared and would convinced any one to the point that the presenters may have thought it could not fail.

The thought of locating this facility 9 miles from the shores of Long Island and 10 miles from the coastline of Connecticut seems ideal, because that kind of a distance is a good enough buffer in case of any kind of accident.

However the presenters did not take into consideration the commercial and recreational fishing activities that was prevalent in the area and how there operation would hurt these events irrevocably.

The area also had great cultural significance to the people for generations and allowing multinationals to enter and environmentally rape the location of its pristine and enduring qualities, was a hard pill to swallow for many.

Operation of this facility would not only change the area for ever but would also set a precedent for other companies to follow.

The New York and Connecticut leaders could have been deceived by the quality and the financial promises in the proposal, but they hired independent third parties to investigate the project so that they could make informed and objective decisions.

Trans Canada and Shell US proposed to supply 1 billion cubic feet of natural gas daily into the region and this gas was the cleanest burning substitute for oil and other more fossil related supplies. However independent research found that other suppliers could do the same without building a storage plant in their harbor.

They investors also promised to ensure that there will be no near off shore or other coastal wetlands disturbances during construction and operations.

However, it would have been foolhardy to accept such argument as there can be no zero risk for operations of that kind and once the solace of the people of the area has been disturbed it will change for ever.

Globally speaking, energysystems.com reported at least18 such LNG companies making offers to operate off the coastline of several cities and countries.

The Quaddy Bay LNG Company had to withdraw its offer when the state of Maine rejected there proposal due to opposition from responsible citizens in October 2008.

In most of these cases there were great oppositions from citizens, watch dog groups and environmental organizations.

Therefore New York and Connecticut are not alone and was correct to reject this selfish and dangerous offer.

The presence of an LNG facility in the middle of the Long Island Sound would do extensive damage to the aquatic life of the area, as the mating and breeding cycles of different species would be disturbed and this would contribute to lower production of seafood for the market.

Allowing the project would also lead to possible severe social invasion of the area by commercial and other related activities, leading to possible severe disruption of normally very quiet neighborhoods.

It seems also that the threat from alternate energy related organizations  like solar, wind, wood biomass, and geothermal ,could be  behind the reason many LNG companies are invading the shoreline of many cities in different countries to set up businesses.

These companies should also be rejected using all available resources especially from the environmental organizations, and focus groups. Many lives has been lost in the past because of the selfish pursuits of organizations and it is time to send the correct signals regarding the preservation of the environment and by extension the lives of present and future generations.

The future generations of these two states will honor these present leaders for their socially responsible behavior in rejecting the Broadwater proposal.