why here, if they build it were going to be swallowing gas and dead marine life, and that close, you'll probably be smelling stuff if wind blows in, it wont be healthy for children adults or anyone. I hope that the petition works, Monmouth county shouldn't be contaminated with gas. and gas in the getty in LB/MB has been 3.97 for weeks.
Change in the environment. Pollution. Runoff from the stations. Spills from the stations. Just construction debris in the water. List goes on.Originally Posted by Darealm
Change in the Environment? What is your position on the subway cars that are submerged to create an artificial reef? I'm not saying this is the same thing, but I would like some estimate of what kind of damage it would cause to habitat.
Runoff, of what type?
Spills? of Gas? It would probably bubble to the surface...
Construction debris, I agree with you, could be harmful. That is why the construction should be closely monitored and the companies be held liable if damage is made.
What happens if the natural gas infrastructure is not built up? Probably more oil traveling across the ocean, which I argue poses more risk of environmental damage than natural gas...
Last edited by Darealm; Jul 15, 2008 at 02:47 AM.
to save energy we can all turn off our computers and stop posting on this forum. ride/walk to the beach and check the waves ourselves, but thats no fun now is it?
Change in environment - the subway cars are placed specifically so they won't harm life. These are going to be placed for above surface procedures, so they would have to go through great lengths for safety of the ocean. Runoff - Human waste. Gas... whether its at the surface or not, its not good to be in the ocean.
As for the construction, no matter how hard it is closely monitored, it will still happen.
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for finding new resources, but this one just doesn't sound good to me.
http://www.surfriderjsc.org/news.asp?nid=54
Link at bottom...
actually, building those things creates wonderful fishing grounds.
submitted it.
Two different issues here:
First, why can't they build the LNG terminals on existing sites? We've all seen the mills/chemical plants/refineries up and down the coast that can never close because it will cost too much to clean up. Let them build the terminals there instead of on virgin land.
Secondly, this whole thing with Bush lifting the moratorium on offshore drilling is complete BS. The oil companies aren't even using 80% of the leased areas they've already determined to have potential! It's just a land grab at a time when they think the American people are most vulnerable. Will it reduce gas prices? Maybe in 10 years - that's how long it will take to explore, set up the infastructure, and finally get the oil out to refine.
Besides best case scenario, we have 10% of the world's oil supply in the US, but we use 25%. How on earth are we ever going to make up that difference? Let's spend our money on technologies to increase gas mileage, install a bonefide rail system, and of course continue to explore alternative sources.
(P.S. When Bush took office gas prices were $1.46)
tbing: care to link us to your source of information explaining how all of these things are bad for the ocean and environment?
Reply With Quote
