« On the road again | Main | The other side »
June 21, 2005
Actually, it's not safe
Riley wants proof LNG safe for fish
Liquified natural gas is poisonous, pressurized, and cold; fish don't like any of that. But that's not his question, it's just more bad phrasing from the headline writer.
Is the LNG terminal planned for Mobile Bay going to damage the area's fishing industry? It seems quite likely that it will. ConocoPhillips is planning an "open loop" LNG process that will spew out water some 16 degrees colder than the surrounding water, which will kill pretty much everything in the area. They say that they need to do this to be financially competitive. It will save $20-40 million a year. The facility is expected to bring in $1 billion a year. Hmm.
Posted by Mac Thomason at June 21, 2005 08:25 AM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.bravesbeat.com/mt-tb.cgi/8595
Comments
I feel so frustrated by all this I'm almost without words to describe it. The community invested an incredible amount of energy to fight off the first Exxon location, the one that was cozied up to the elementary school. Putting it offshore seemed like the perfect solution. Now we find out that's going to wreck the bay.
Aren't they threatening to add a tag to some Federal bill that will make it impossible for local citizens to dispute the placement of any LNG terminal?
Posted by: Del at June 21, 2005 09:44 AM
Saving 2% to 4% of one's costs is pretty significant, despite your implication.
Or maybe Alabama doesn't really need the gas and the power, and will be willing to endure the occasional brownout or rolling blackout. After all, California managed, and Alabama's almost third-world anyway, isn't it?
Posted by: Anthony at June 23, 2005 10:48 AM
I agree, two to four percent of their costs is significant. (I'm not sure what makes you think I implied otherwise.) And I'm sure Conoco would like to save an additional two to four percent by cutting corners or lifting restrictions in some other area as well. The line has to be drawn somewhere, and I happen to think it should be drawn on the side of not destroying large areas of healthy Gulf waters. And yes, I am willing to conserve power and pay more for I do use to support that.
However, it looks as though the terminal might end up right back next to the elementary school. (Even Jeff Sessions fought this one
, but Shelby felt the Constitution bade him oppose Sen. Feinstein's amendment.)
Posted by: Del at June 23, 2005 04:00 PM