Rell, Task Force Assail Broadwater Regulators

If she did nothing else but prevent this disaster, Gov. Rell would have redeemed her admnistration. Anyone who wants to see what the results of the Broadwater LNG plant might be should watch the ending of the film "Syriana": http://youtube.com/watch...

At the Branford open meeting in 2007 it was suggested by one person that Broadwater not be allowed a License to do business in Connecticut. Add to it, that Shell Oil no longer have gas stations in Connecticut. The next step might well be to have the state of Connecticut sue the FERC as a group,and each member indidually. Keep Broadwaters expenses as high as possible, for as long as possible and they will probably QUIT this attack on the beautiful waters of Long Island Sound.

Present Cost of fuel for boats will mean less sales taxes collected for sales of boats(market is way off), less registration income due each state, etc.

They talk of $300 savings per household. Is that before or after the required conversion. How much is that cost, and to whom ? Yes you and I

This is for all the people that want to drill an ANWAR:

Build the plant already... we need that energy source... It is a great idea... Who cares if it is an eyesore or hurts the environment, build the damn thing already.

We need to do more than just defeat Broadwater. We need to take the LIS off the table by law, protecting it from any further commercial development. Otherwise we will be embroiled in one fight after another for eternity as other greedy entreprenurs try and carve it up for their own gain at our expense. If Long Island needs excessive amounts of energy, it is only because greedy entreprenurs have already been allowed to overdevelop beyond all reason. Cut them off!

Gotta Love It wrote:

This is for all the people that want to drill an ANWAR:
Build the plant already... we need that energy source... It is a great idea... Who cares if it is an eyesore or hurts the environment, build the damn thing already.

You don't object to this proposed mess because you live in Pittsdump, a testament to industrial eyesores!

Mike Iin Winsted wrote:

<quoted text>
You don't object to this proposed mess because you live in Pittsdump, a testament to industrial eyesores!

Uhh The isp location is Pittsburgh I live in CT. but you can think what you want however srong you are.

Gotta Love It wrote:

This is for all the people that want to drill an ANWAR:
Build the plant already... we need that energy source... It is a great idea... Who cares if it is an eyesore or hurts the environment, build the damn thing already.

The proposed locations for broadwater in Long Island Sound and the facility in ANWR are incredibly different. LIS is a heavily used area, very near lots of population. The drilling site in ANWR is a frozen rocky plain, with almost 100 miles of uninhabited open space between the drilling site and the nearest tree.

Anyone who makes a comparison like that is an uneducated fool.

Zippy wrote:

We need to do more than just defeat Broadwater. We need to take the LIS off the table by law, protecting it from any further commercial development. Otherwise we will be embroiled in one fight after another for eternity as other greedy entreprenurs try and carve it up for their own gain at our expense. If Long Island needs excessive amounts of energy, it is only because greedy entreprenurs have already been allowed to overdevelop beyond all reason. Cut them off!

Greedy enterpeneurs? Damn, these people are providing resources people desparately need. If you hate it so much, don't use any energy. Frickin hypocrite.

What do the Opponents propose as an alternative to Broadwater? We lament the high prices of oil and fuel and our economy is tanking, in part, because of it. We oppose wars because they "are all about oil", we oppose drilling in Alaska, we oppose nuclear power plants; yet we drive SUV's, build 3500 square foot homes and line up at Chavez's Citgo stations to gas up. The hipocrisy of all of this would be funny if it did not cost us so dearly. While the Governor, AG, Senators, Congressmen, special interests. etc. fight Broadwater, what realistic solutions to our energy problems have you heard them proposing?

Jeff H wrote:

<quoted text>
The proposed locations for broadwater in Long Island Sound and the facility in ANWR are incredibly different. LIS is a heavily used area, very near lots of population. The drilling site in ANWR is a frozen rocky plain, with almost 100 miles of uninhabited open space between the drilling site and the nearest tree.
Anyone who makes a comparison like that is an uneducated fool.

They both destoy the environment. They are both wasted space... YOu just don't wnat it in your backyard... like most of the other fools that want to drill in ANWAR. My comparison stand and you are an ignorant moron for even attempting to insult me about it. Grow up.

So no Natural Gas, No Nuclear, how should we generate clean efficient electricity?

Dear Honorable State of New York Governor David Paterson,

Please accept this correspondence in good will. I am a Connecticut state resident, and I am presently concerned with the pending liquefied natural gas facility being planned for the middle of our beautiful, historic, and mutually shared and enjoyed, Long Island/Connecticut Sound estuary.

It is my hope that this pristine natural asset will remain so, for the mutual benefit of all Connecticut and New York residents, as well as for any other visitor, far into the infinite future. I believe that this treasure of a place must remain protected, and an exclusive region of public domain, because not only does this vista represent the entire Connecticut coastal heritage, but, also, because such beautiful places are constantly visited due to the hope and healing they provide. Without such refuges of the soul, mankind will only wither away in the shadows of progress for the meager consolation of excessive comfort and corporate profit.

Connecticut residents have invested millions of dollars in the Preserve The Sound fund over the years, to clean it up and enjoy its tranquility, but this peace will be lost forever, if private industrialization proceeds. As you must know, many alternatives have been placed on the table already, including the claim that the existing infrastructure can already provide adequate supply in the event of a shortfall (see: New Haven Register, Feb 26, 2008 - Scientists blast feds on LNG plan), but Broadwater refuses to relinquish their claim to their imagined hegemony.

Please, let them know, once and for all, that We The People of Connecticut and New York have chosen an alternative way to invest in our future, and that that future includes the preservation and protection, as set forth under the joint Stewardship Act, of this wonderful, fragile, and sensitive place, for the solace of the spirit that defines us as a region, and do not let them divide and conquer us, because of short-sightedness, negligence, and greed.

With this said, I leave you to ponder the issue of how much beauty matters to mankind, and how it has always been beauty that sets us free.

Jeff H wrote:

<quoted text>
Greedy enterpeneurs? Damn, these people are providing resources people desparately need. If you hate it so much, don't use any energy. Frickin hypocrite.

March 2003: Price of gasoline $1.50 per gallon at the pump.

--WE NEED CHEAPER ENERGY--

March 12, 2003: Bush, Senate Energy Committee betray consumers with Federal Energy Commission (FERC) appointments. Appointment, nomination stack deck in favor of energy deregulation.

MARCH 19, 2003: Bush launches invasion of Iraq

MARCH 30, 2003: Donald Rumsfeld: We know where the WMD are

MAY 1, 2003: Mission Accomplished
...

February 2008: Exxon/Mobile report all-time high record profit of $41,000,000,000 for 2007.

March 12, 2008: Price of Iraq war estimated at $12,000,000,000 per month.

May 2008: Price of gasoline $4.00 per gallon at the pump.

--...Oops, the policy to stabilize the economy might not be working as planned.--

Dear Jeanne:

The opponents propose CONSERVATION.

That is the one and only solution to lowering costs, protecting natural resources, and retaining some minimal quality of life.

Those whose only answer is BUILD MORE are only perpetuating the inevitable -and leaving the problem for future generations to grapple with. Don't be so short sighted.

Dear CT Resident,
Ok, lets conserve. I have energy efficient lightbulbs, a brand new 5k energy efficient furnace, a new digital thermostat which reduces my heat to 60 at night and ups it to 64 during the day, an energy efficient home of 2300 sq ft, a car that gets 28 mpg. I time my trips to include several stops rather than take several trips. I turn off my lights when I am not using them. It is also costing me hundreds of more dollars for energy use each month which means my disposable income is pretty much non existent. Where else might I conserve?

What you fail to recognize is that the demands on energy sources are worldwide. Increased demand in China does affect the price in the US! No matter how much you and I do to conserve, the world is demanding more energy. Further, as long as we are dependent on another country to provide what the US needs, conservation will have NO impact on price.

We NEED new US based energy sources while we are conserving. So, CT Resident: It is smart to encourage conservation. It is stupid to think that alone will solve the problem. It is arrogant and selfish to try to halt one plan without having a viable alternative. Short sighted on my part? I think not. Tunnel vision on your part? Without a doubt!

April wrote:

Dear CT Resident,
Ok, lets conserve. I have energy efficient lightbulbs, a brand new 5k energy efficient furnace, a new digital thermostat which reduces my heat to 60 at night and ups it to 64 during the day, an energy efficient home of 2300 sq ft, a car that gets 28 mpg. I time my trips to include several stops rather than take several trips. I turn off my lights when I am not using them. It is also costing me hundreds of more dollars for energy use each month which means my disposable income is pretty much non existent. Where else might I conserve?
What you fail to recognize is that the demands on energy sources are worldwide. Increased demand in China does affect the price in the US! No matter how much you and I do to conserve, the world is demanding more energy. Further, as long as we are dependent on another country to provide what the US needs, conservation will have NO impact on price.
We NEED new US based energy sources while we are conserving. So, CT Resident: It is smart to encourage conservation. It is stupid to think that alone will solve the problem. It is arrogant and selfish to try to halt one plan without having a viable alternative. Short sighted on my part? I think not. Tunnel vision on your part? Without a doubt!

It seems that you are believing some wierd logic that somehow Broadwater is planning to give out cheap gas. What business does that, tell me? It is well known that market forces determine prices, so that claim is propaganda. Why doesn't a gas station at every corner do the same thing? What, exactly, are you believing about this operation, and why? Moreover, why are you not listening to what ALL the CT legislators, both Republicans AND Democrats are saying? If you did, you would see that they are going to address the issue, but without Broadwater invading Long Island Sound. See: http://youtube.com/watch...
Governor (yes, that's GOVERNOR) Rell's speech offers many alternatives to the same objective, with the difference being the LONG-TERM interest of Connecticut in mind.

Jeanne wrote:

What do the Opponents propose as an alternative to Broadwater?

There are many alternatives out there, including expanding the existing Iroquois line and an LNG terminal in the Atlantic that the 'environmentalists' do NOT object to. Shell Oil wants the LI Sound so it can to edge out Exxon and others when competing with the other proposed LNG providers. Do you think it's any coincidence that Shell's new Nigerian LNG plant will be up and running in 2010, just when - guess what - the Shell staff claims 'we will reach a critical point in energy consumption?' C'mon, everyone wise up and stop drinking the Broadwater cool-aid. This is about greed and free real estate for Shell so they can try and get a leg up on a very large customer base. PS: Broadwater will not release the numbers on how they calculate our so called 'savings'. Why is it so top secret?

Keith J Robbins BOZRAH wrote:

So no Natural Gas, No Nuclear, how should we generate clean efficient electricity?

No one said no LNG - they are saying NOT to place the largest barge in the world for this in a National Estuary of Significance, 1 of only 12 in our country. They are right. LI Sound is not an industrial park and not a buffer zone for a terrorist attack. And natural gas is NOT as 'clean burning' as the hype says: it's a fossil fuel just like oil, and the extraction from the ground emits all kinds of green house gases even before it's burned. It's no magic bullet.

Jeanne wrote:

What do the Opponents propose as an alternative to Broadwater? We lament the high prices of oil and fuel and our economy is tanking, in part, because of it. We oppose wars because they "are all about oil", we oppose drilling in Alaska, we oppose nuclear power plants; yet we drive SUV's, build 3500 square foot homes and line up at Chavez's Citgo stations to gas up. The hipocrisy of all of this would be funny if it did not cost us so dearly. While the Governor, AG, Senators, Congressmen, special interests. etc. fight Broadwater, what realistic solutions to our energy problems have you heard them proposing?

Two Huge Lies From Broadwater Corporation! Think about it:

I. The project, once complete, is expected to save New York and Connecticut residents up to $300 per year on their heating bills.

Comment: Firstly, no one can possibly know this, never mind that it just cannot be true! By the time all of the additional security requirements are accounted for, including all of the conditional requests currently under consideration for its potential approval, tax write-offs, and all of the payoffs that are presently occurring, etc., this figure may not only be negated completely, but actually present a reverse negative liability to consumers, in terms of rate increases, to cover it all. This claim simply cannot be made at this time.

Secondly, and as significantly, all companies do business to return profit. No company is in business as a philanthropic organization, especially not to make less money when investors are involved. Shell oil was second only to Exxon for the all-time profit record last year (41 billion dollars). How can this statement be newsworthy, as if it is their primary purpose to allow us to waste more, and more cheaply, at that.

II. The project lies entirely within New York waters.

Comment: That would only be true if the additional territory needed to cover security, and a worst-case scenario disaster--along with all of the security itself--was also factored in. But that cannot happen within the geographical limits of the Sound. CT and NY share joint stewardship of Long Island Sound. Public domain is not to be divided for the purposes of private enterprise. This needs to be made more clear in news reports.

PS:
Just do the math:

Exxon's net profit for 2007, that is after all expenses, was 41 Billion dollars.
If you reduce that by 90%, they still make 4.1 Billion dollars, which is what Chevron made; but reduce the price of their gas by 90%, and you get 32 cents a gallon for Exxon gas. Why don't they do that? How about if they made 41 Million dollars? Then it would be pennies a gallon. Maybe, if we change their name to Exxonwater, it will happen then? There are 31.5 Million seconds in a year. Therefore, if you count as fast as you can, like 3 beats a second, you barely reach one Billion after a whole year. Now try multiplying that by 40. That's how fast they make dollars when you pump their gas. Why not tell them that you want cheap energy? They will tell you that it already is, because they are nice enough to let you have some at all. Anyway, let them build their LNG plant out to sea, as they wish, and problem solved--see: BlueOcean Energy proposal. Asking for cheap energy is absurd, and it is even more so to claim to be able to provide it at these profit levels!