Editorial: Long Island must benefit even more from Broadwater

The promise of Broadwater is cheap natural gas for Long Island from a new, reliable source.

[BryanB]

This editorial is ridiculous and the editorial writer(s) should be fired for incompetence. The editorial completely ignores the most important issue in the Broadwater mess. Long Island Sound belongs to the people of NY and CT. The Department of State can't just give it away to a private interest, not even a small part of it.

This nonsense about deals and negotiations only demonstrates the ignorance of Newsday editors. But it doesn't stop there. The nonsense about price guarantees and how they think the market works further demonstrates that they have no idea what the h-ll they're talking about.

[Bob]

Bravo! A very sensible opinion. Let's allow this facility to go forward with Long Island getting 50 percent of the gas. Let's face it, Spitzer is going to go for it anyway because if he doesn't, he will look awfully stupid when oil hits $200 a barrel and people are scrambling for energy supplies. Why let neighboring states have the cheap energy derived from these facilities? We need it here, all of us.

[RAM]

As far as I Know LI is part of NY, and 70% of the gas goes to NY, why LIers are complaining about??. They consider themselves a different State??.The Feds want CT and probably Mass in the equation that's one of the reason why LI sound was choose. You can't deny the biggest and more powerfull city of our nation the right of energy!,this editorial and some LIer actitud are shortsighted.

[hey now]

Its unbelievable that every politician from ny and ct isnt raising hell over this proposal. Would they stick this in the middle of the grand canyon? In the middle of Niagra Falls? in the middle of the artic refuge in Alaska? We all know the answer.

[No kidding]

There has never been anything in this for Long Island except the liabilities.

The benefits have always been pure NYC.

Put the f'n barge in Upper NY Harbor or the East f'n River and listen to the howling.

[Michael]

Cheaper energy. More jobs. More prestige. Better economy. More tax revenue. Less Pollution. And Newsday doesn't think that is enough. Go to Hell Newsday !!! Newsday hates Long Island and could care less about a good project for us.
GO TO HELL NEWSDAY !

[No kidding]

Michael wrote:

Cheaper energy. More jobs. More prestige. Better economy. More tax revenue. Less Pollution.

Patently false, every one of your assertions.

[Michael]

No kidding wrote:

<quoted text>
Patently false, every one of your assertions.

Even Newsday admits this but it is "not enough"; moron; put your head back in the sand !

GO TO HELL NEWSDAY !!!

[Fisherman Tom]

hey now wrote:

Its unbelievable that every politician from ny and ct isnt raising hell over this proposal. Would they stick this in the middle of the grand canyon? In the middle of Niagra Falls? in the middle of the artic refuge in Alaska? We all know the answer.

Does the Sound compare to the above listed places?

[No kidding]

Michael wrote:

<quoted text>
Even Newsday admits this but it is "not enough"

It's an empty bag, fool.

Who's the MORON now? You?

Or is it "Youze"? IDIOT.

[the other side]

Michael wrote:

<quoted text>
Even Newsday admits this but it is "not enough"; moron; put your head back in the sand !
GO TO HELL NEWSDAY !!!

Michael, How will this improve our economy - they are not LI jobs. How will it help energy costs - only 10 percent will come to LI. Less polution - we will still be burning fossil fuels so why would you think less particulate matter would go into the air? Natural gas is the same when burned no matter how it is delivered. So Michael, since your opinions are so strong, what is your background in energy and environmental science to be so certain that the Sound will not be at risk? Since you are so sure, perhaps you should advise all of the LI decision makers since, according to you, they are ill advised.

[Patty Pothead]

No kidding wrote:

<quoted text>
It's an empty bag, fool.
Who's the MORON now? You?
Or is it "Youze"? IDIOT.

You are so angry. You must be very short....in more ways than one. Needledick!

[Vic]

Put the LNG gas terminal in the Long Island Sound since it will be subject to less weather, wind and sea wave problems. Tough luck for the snobs on the north shore who always get their way. Look what the north shore has done in the past: no bridge from the oyster bay expressway to Westchester, and the closing of Shoreham nuclear plant. Both very expensive decisions.

[No kidding]

Patty Pothead wrote:

<quoted text>
You are so angry. You must be very short....in more ways than one. Needledick!

You, on the other hand, in addition to being way wrong, are a self-professed pothead.

Analyze that, oh clueless one.

[Emily Litella]

No kidding wrote:

<quoted text>
Patently false, every one of your assertions.

Natural gas can be considered as the most environmentally friendly of the fossil fuels, because it has the lowest CO2 emissions per unit of energy and because it is suitable for use in high efficiency combined cycle power stations.LNG is still superior to alternatives such as fuel oil or coal.Natural gas power plants emit approximately half the carbon dioxide of an equivalent coal power plant.Seaborne LNG transport tankers (including their loading terminals) have not had a major accident in over 47,000 voyages since maritime inception in 1959. There have, however, been several significant incidents with LNG ships, but with only minor spills.

[No kidding]

Emily Litella wrote:

<quoted text>Natural gas can be considered as the most environmentally friendly of the fossil fuels

Yet LNG marine transport is the least energy efficient and the dirtiest means around. Not to mention the spills.

Play again?

[Michael]

the other side wrote:

<quoted text>Michael, How will So Michael, since your opinions are so strong, what is your background in energy and environmental science to be so certain that the Sound will not be at risk?.

I have a Bachelors in Physics, MBA in Finance and a Law Degree. Most of my career has been in science and economics. What is your background ???

[confuse a cat]

No kidding wrote:

<quoted text>
Yet LNG marine transport is the least energy efficient and the dirtiest means around. Not to mention the spills.
Play again?

We must all pay to play: "there is no free lunch." For instance,the world's rush to embrace biofuels is causing a spike in the price of corn and other crops and could worsen water shortages and force poor communities off their land, a U.N. official said Wednesday.In recent months, scientists, private agencies and even the British government have said biofuels could do more harm than good. Rather than protecting the environment, they say energy crops destroy natural forests that actually store carbon and thus are a key tool in the fight to reduce global warming.Nor is the answer to our energy needs "blowing in the wind."In 1998, Norway commissioned a study of wind power in Denmark and concluded that it has "serious environmental effects, insufficient production, and high production costs."Denmark (population 5.3 million) has over 6,000 turbines that produced electricity equal to 19% of what the country used in 2002. Yet no conventional power plant has been shut down. Because of the intermittency and variability of the wind, conventional power plants must be kept running at full capacity to meet the actual demand for electricity. Most cannot simply be turned on and off as the wind dies and rises, and the quick ramping up and down of those that can be would actually increase their output of pollution and carbon dioxide (the primary "greenhouse" gas). So when the wind is blowing just right for the turbines, the power they generate is usually a surplus and sold to other countries at an extremely discounted price, or the turbines are simply shut off.

[Michael]

Wind power has been an enviornmental disaster. The impact of the highly touted windmills forced upon us by "enviornmentalists" was worse than evry oil spill combined. The damage to wildlife, especially migratory birds, has been staggering and permanent. Just as enviornmentalists created global warming by getting aerosol cans banned, they are responsible for the loss of hundreds of species of birds in just a few years.

[No kidding]

Michael wrote:

<quoted text>
I have a Bachelors in Physics, MBA in Finance and a Law Degree. Most of my career has been in science and economics. What is your background ???

Alright! We're already up to the "my dog is better than your dog" part of the debate! Keep it coming, and keep it relevant.