How will offshore Oil Drilling pass, when Broadwater is catching so much heat?

For those of you who don’t know about Broadwater - it’s a vessel known as a Floating Storage Regasification Unit, or FSRU, would be about 1,200 feet long and 180 feet wide and would rise about 75 to 80 feet above the water.

There is plenty of scrutiny about the project and a coalition of area residents and lawmakers trying to halt the project.

I use Broadwater in the context of our recent offshore drilling threads. Long Island Sound is a beautiful scenic body of water, that may have a huge “target” eye sore planted right in the middle of it to serve CT and NYC natural gas. This to try and lower our energy needs.

I see much more of an environmental impact should something go wrong on the station than any positives that could come from this thing. I’ve been to city council meetings and planing and zoning joint meetings between CT and NY towns. There is a lot of opposition to this, but we don’t know what the future will hold should it actually be built.

Offshore drilling like McCain is touting and Obama would consider seems to be something that this country may need, but shoreline residents like myself would see as a potential disaster should anything go wrong with the ‘floating units’.

If Broadwater is catching so much flack, how would offshore drilling off of Daytona, or Cape Hatteras end up working out? Would the rigs be below the horizon? I know we would be able to see Broadwater… I live on Long Island Sound…I certainly do not want to be fishing for stripers in September around a floating natural gas facility.

I have a sense that environmental concerns are being left by the wayside or at least slipping below the horizon with a lot of these drilling/energy projects. When will the environment be considered as a viable reason NOT to build more potential hazards?

OK, what does your sense tell you about the hundreds of oil rigs already in place? If they’re not safe shouldn’t they all be shut down? Does it tell you that new technologies will be less safe or more safe given all the cumulative environmental standards set in place?

We managed to get Broadwater sacked.

And the comparison of a LNG transfer facility in an enclosed body of water to a drilling platform out on the continental shelf is apples to hedgehogs.

I thought about putting that word in there, I should know better than to use “sense” when talking on the SDMB.

To your points, I understand what is already in place - my dislike of the oil rigs and drilling should not get in the way of straight-up debating, but it does.
I think the degree to which these facilities are safe environmentally is what is up for discussion. I do not have the facts for that. I wish I did.

Is it totally dead in the water…I thought they were in an appeals process?

There’s always the possibility of appeal, but with Governor Paterson against it, and the establishment of a joint New York / Connecticut Sound Management Commission, I don’t expect it to ever be a treat.

If I am wrong, then I can start working against it again.

Ok, I know Governor Rell was flipfloping a bit on it, but Attorney General for CT Richard Blumenthal was very much opposed to it. I went to one meeting here in CT and it was a bash fest for the poor Broadwater guys who showed up to pitch it a few years ago.

My biggest gripe (aside from my serious reservations about shutting down the Race to let giant LNG tankers through) was that the installation would impact Connecticut’s use of the Sound while only benefitting New Yorkers with increased natural gas supplies.

Everyone was talking about increasing supplies, while no one was saying anything about decreasing demand. Makes my frugal Yankee blood boil.

So if Connecticut needs to buy power from Ohio I should take the stance that we got ours and y’al should just conserve yourself back to the stone age? How about we take a more measured approach and use the resources of our own country to support OUR country? We’re already working on the solutions to the future. That doesn’t mean we have to roll over and play dead. If we driver our economy into the ground than money for future research will be turned into CO2 while we stagger down a spiraling economy that relies more and more on coal and natural gas. We need the resources NOW to fuel our economy NOW. The alternative is to import our energy, which is another way of saying we’re exporting our tax base.

I understand your concern about energy conservation but you have to be realistic. You cannot expect a growing population to reduce demand beyond what a household budget would allow. We’re already switching to CFL bulbs and buying appliances that are more efficient. It’s not reasonable to buy solar cell’s for a house at the current cost per watt hour. And that goes for tax payer funded rebates. The money is better spent on nuclear power and research on future solar technology.