Save The Sound
Since the project was made public, organizations such as Save The Sound (www.savethesound.org) and Connecticut Fund For The Environment have voiced fierce opposition to Broadwater. On the Save The Sound website, the group states, “The Broadwater Project only seeks to add to existing supplies; it does nothing to replace current dirty emissions from Long Island power plants, or any of the more environmentally damaging facilities” according to www.savethesound.org. The appeal to environmental concerns is powerful, but the real worry over such a construction project for some is the potential such a ‘floating facility’ has as a target of terrorists. Imagine the environmental chaos that could be inflicted on New York if a natural gas storage facility in Long Island Sound became the victim of a 9/11-style attack. It would be easy to dismiss some of the opposition to the Broadwater Project as a Pollyannaish “not in MY backyard” attempt to stand in the way of “corporate interests”, but further examination of the Shell/TransCanada Energy proposal does show a potential for environmental problems should a mishap occur. Consider the inevitable natural gas spills that will one day make Long Island headlines, plus issues with sewage, wastewater and other concerns of operating a floating or permanently anchored facility. Among the concerns raised by Savethesound.org, the twenty-five miles of undersea pipeline which is included in the plans for Broadwater. “Undersea pipeline…” the website states, “…will have a significant and negative impact on the critically important sea bottom of the Sound. The last electric cable project failed to meet environmental standards and was only activated following political pressure from the White House. “ No matter which side of the controversy you fall on, one thing is certain. The Broadwater Project does carry with it a considerable amount of potential danger to the environment. It would be irresponsible to suggest otherwise—at one point or another in the history of such a facility there would be some kind of incident; Human error, bad weather, small craft colliding with the facility, terrorism—all possibilities to consider. Even so, the real issue isn’t whether the project’s safety performance in the long run. Instead, the most pressing questions are still largely unaddressed by both those in favor of the Broadwater Project and those opposed. What kinds of casualties, and along which lines, are tolerable in the face of such a project? Is a minor spill or incident at the offshore site an acceptable risk? If so, how small? What about a larger incident? A catastrophic one? Does the creation of X number of jobs make these incidents more palatable? Does the cancellation of the Broadwater Project in Long Island Sound give a “green light” to a similar facility in an even more vulnerable or critical area? Most importantly, is such a project even necessary at all? What is the precise need for a floating facility in Long Island Sound? Until both sides address these questions, the Broadwater debate will be incomplete. If the citizens of Long Island cannot be given good answers, Broadwater should not be allowed into the development phase. At the same time, those who oppose Broadwater should be wondering “if not us, then WHO?” Protesting against the creation of such a potential hazard should not be limited to cries of “not in OUR backyards!” If those involved in the fight against the project are sincere, the scope of the issue should not be limited to the waters of Long Island Sound. An environmental problem should be addressed in terms of its viability as a concept regardless of geography. Anything less could be viewed-- in historical terms-- as the same kind of short-sightedness some accuse both Shell and TransCanada Energy of having with regard to the environment. Joe Wallace
|
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
A controversy has been brewing over a proposed Shell/TransCanada Energy floating storage facility that would be anchored seventeen miles from the Long Island Sound ferry. The Broadwater Project has created quite a stir among environmental groups and concerned citizens. As part of Broadwater, Shell and TransCanada Energy propose a four hundred yard long liquefied natural gas storage facility that would drop anchor ten miles from East Haven. 