Existing view:
With Proposed Facility:
Posted on 04/13/2009 1:26:54 PM PDT by thackney
The U.S. Department of Commerce said Monday it upheld New York state’s objection to a floating liquefied natural gas (LNG) terminal and pipeline in Long Island Sound.
Nearly a year ago to the day, New York’s Gov. David Paterson rejected a proposal by energy companies Shell and TransCanada to build an LNG platform in the waters between New York and Connecticut.
The companies appealed to Commerce, which concluded Monday that the project’s impacts to the coast outweighed the benefits on grounds that “its location in an undeveloped region of the Sound would significantly impair its unique scenic and aesthetic character” the department said in a release.
Rejection of Broadwater was the latest setback for the energy industry’s efforts to build a terminal off North America’s eastern shores to import supplies of frozen natural gas from the Caribbean, Middle East and West Africa.
The project was estimated in 2004 to cost about $700 million.
Connecticut’s Gov. Jodi Rell applauded Commerce’s decision. “This misguided project is now down for the count,” Rell said in a release.
Tell NY to drill for its own oil and natural gas.
NIMBY, said wealthy coastal homeowners.
The northeast should continue to use oil for heat then. Since the left has indicated that we will soon deplete world oil reserves, the northeast should be prepared to turn their thermostats way down (50 degrees) and not begin the heating season until November. Bravo for another excellent chapter in the continuing saga of energy obstruction.
Would the terminal even be visible from the shore without binoculars?
Another blow against lower energy costs.
Nah, New York and Conn. couldn’t use those jobs (or subsequent tax revenues), since they are tied to those evil “fossil fuels.”
Don’t you just HATE those natural gas slicks?
Existing view:
With Proposed Facility:
computer generated view from many different angles
http://www.broadwaterenergy.com/index.php?page=location
Let them freeze in the dark!
I’d wonder why the whole thing could not go underwater, to get it completely out of view. No technology to transfer the gas from ship to terminal below the surface?
I would say there is no advantage to spending the expense of going underwater.
The biggest complaint that seems to attract public attention is the tankers themselves.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.