Broadwater: Floating Folly
Join the discussion below, or Read more at Hartford Courant.
#1 Feb 5, 2007
The same problem is faced in Quebec, where a modest $840 million plant is planned in the town of Levis across St. Lawrence River from Quebec City. See Toronto Globe and Mail for story on Feb. 5, 2007
#2 Feb 5, 2007
So what this author is saying is that this LNG terminal won't be used because of the new facilities in the maritime provinces of Canada, but also that all the deliveries to the platform will disrupt ferry traffic. So which is it: the facility will never be used or it'll generate significant tanker traffic?
If it's going to be underutilized, why are TransCanada and Shell going to spend $1 billion to build it? Aren't corporations in the business of making money?
Isn't one reason we're using more energy is because there are more people? If you want to promote less energy use, simply make the prices of energy higher. Then people will automatically use less.
Right now, Connecticut has very high electric prices. But you've got all these activist groups opposing the recent rate hikes. Shouldn't they be cheering because people will use less energy?
What good would it do for terrorists to blow up a LNG platform 11 miles from land? What would that accomplish? According to this author, it wouldn't even disrupt the flow of LNG since the Canadian terminals could handle that.
This author seems to throw a bunch of random arguments against the platform against the wall and hopes a few stick.
Add your comments below
|Helper Is Carjacked on Long Island Road (Jul '07)||Jul '07||Mr Politcally Cor...||2|
Find what you want!
Search Long Island Forum Now
Copyright © 2016 Topix LLC