Say 'No' to LNG

by Sir Arthur Foulkes

The debate over the proposed Bahamas-Florida LNG project has flared up again as a result of the visit of Florida Governor Jeb Bush, and Prime Minister Perry Christie still sounds as if he is leaning towards approval.

No doubt Governor Bush and the LNG lobby were hoping that the visit would spur a quick response from Mr. Christie. They did get an acknowledgement from Mr. Christie that “clearly a decision is necessary in moving ahead”.

Then Mr. Christie revealed that he had talked to the Governor about “assistance in establishing a regulatory regime that will govern any such facility established in the Bahamas”.

It is not encouraging to those who are worried about this proposal to hear that the very people who are so anxious to have it are the ones to whom our prime minister is looking for regulatory help. It must have been difficult for the Floridians to hide their delight when they heard that.

What is Mr. Christie thinking? These are the same people who are so intent on keeping the LNG plant far away from their own territory that they are prepared to pay the Bahamas millions to site it in our backyard and trench 90 miles of the ocean floor to pipe it to Florida.

We have been told that the Bahamas should agree to this proposal before it is taken off the table, that a floating facility can be constructed near Florida and that a terminal can be established 10 miles off Fort Lauderdale where it will be “safe and out of sight”.

So why not do that? Why so anxious to bestow this dubiously wonderful gift on the Bahamas?

Once again there are the usual attempts to obfuscate the issue by some who support the project. They argue that there are risks involved in everything and that LNG is cleaner than other fuels. But those points are not the issue.

The issue is, as I have said in this column before, not about the merits of LNG as opposed to other fuels. It is not about whether LNG is safer than LPG which is transported through the streets of Nassau to serve the needs of people who live here.

It is not about a comparison with the fuel installation at Clifton Pier, which is also there to serve the needs of residents. Neither is it about how many countries and states are building LNG terminals to serve the needs of their people.

It is about whether we should take the considerable risks associated with this project, not for ourselves but for the people of Florida who do not want them in their own backyard and do not want to take the risks for their own benefit.

What would you say to a neighbour who offers to pay you to put his LPG cylinders in your yard because having them near his house makes him nervous? And this project should make us more than nervous, it should worry us no end.

For one thing (in Mr. Christie’s own words), “We are not just another country looking for revenue opportunities. We are a country whose primary industry is tourism and therefore we cannot mistakenly and inappropriately agree to developments and industries that are inimical or inconsistent with the best interest of our tourism industry.”

Nobody is opposed to diversification of our economy but we would be foolish indeed if we diversified ourselves right out of an industry that has provided us with enviable prosperity for generations.

As Sam Duncombe of reEarth put it, “Do you think the average tourist knows where Ocean Cay and Freeport Harbour are in relation to New Providence? When hurricanes pass through our country, they believe the whole country has been shut down.

“Should there be an LNG accident and we cook the goose how are we going to replace the billions from tourism? Why should we destroy our environment while Florida makes constant progress in making it more difficult to destroy theirs?”

Our environment, particularly our delicate coral reefs, is already under attack and hardly a day passes that there is not fresh news – bad news -- about environmental degradation.

The Sunday Times of Britain reported on February 26 that the world’s coral reefs could disappear within a few decades because of rising acid levels in the oceans.

Researchers, says The Times, have found that coral, crabs, oysters and mussels may become unable to build and repair their shells and will die out. And, of course, the disappearance of these creatures will cause the disappearance of larger marine animals that depend on them.

Should we who have been so blessed with wonderful marine resources be a part of this destruction? Or should we be fighting tooth and nail to protect what we have for future generations?

Governor Bush and the LNG lobby can sing us lullabies but we ought to remember that dredging 90 miles of the ocean floor and laying LNG pipes will be a serious risk to the marine environment. Not only will millions of tons of silt be dredged up but more chemicals will be released into the already sick sea.

It would be a nice world if all the captains of industry and their collaborators could be trusted to regulate themselves and protect the universal patrimony. But mountains of evidence show that they cannot.

Bahamians are concerned that the activities of our American friends at the AUTEC base may be contributing to a rise in the incidence of cancer in Andros. We also have good reason to believe that their underwater testing is doing serious injury to marine life. But do not count on them for a full disclosure.

Up to this day we still do not know how the dumping of nerve gas in the Bahamas in 1967 and other chemical and biological experiments in the Caribbean have affected our marine resources and the health of our people.

Others have had and are having similar and worse experiences at the hands of the energy industry. At a time when their profits are skyrocketing, consumers are being gouged and the lives of many made miserable.

Rory Carroll of The Guardian of Britain reported on February 25 that a Nigerian court has ordered Royal Dutch Shell to pay a billion and a half dollars in damages for polluting the Niger River delta.

The court ruled that Shell should compensate local communities for degrading their creeks, spoiling crops and poisoning fish.

The Guardian recalls the struggle of militant groups in the Niger delta for a greater share in oil revenues and compensation for environmental damage. In 1995 the writer and campaigner Ken Saro-Wiwa was executed after leading a peaceful uprising of the Ogoni people in opposition to Shell.

Mrs. Duncombe is right when she points out that Florida is protecting its own environment and she challenges us to protect ours. As hungry as America is for oil, Governor Bush and his administration have resisted efforts by the US Federal Government, headed by his brother President George Bush, to drill for oil off the coast of Florida.

The President wants the oil but the Governor wants to protect Florida’s environment and multibillion dollar tourist trade! So he tells his own brother “No.”

There is a lesson in this for us. If the Governor puts the best interests of his state above the President’s demand for oil, should we not put the best interests of the Bahamas above Florida’s demand for LNG at our risk? We should tell the Governor “No.”

Comments

[Stephen Medina]

We would greatly appreciate if you could supply us with all the details on this LNG proposed project.
Who is the engineering firm?, who are the financiers? Who conducted the FEED and gave the all clear?

Please provide all details possible on this project, we have a feeling that it will also be part of the Intra-Caribbean pipeline project and we can use all the details we can get to carry out similar activities in Trinidad to oppose any further poisoning.

[Bianca B.]

It is interesting to note that there is the presumption that some kind of scientific uncertainty exists regarding the whale deaths in Andros. I am young Bahamian currently studying law in the UK and previously earned a BSc. degree in Biology. My comment is that it is indeed a scientific FACT that sonar testing such as that conducted at the AUTEC base interferes with a process termed Echolocation in marine mammals. This process relies on high frequency transmission of sounds which allows these mammals to communicate with one another. Sonar testing requires extremely high frequency levels which in laymans terms "bursts the mammals eardrums", which is why they are often found beached on the shore with blood coming from their ears. AUTEC would be certainly be held liable for environmental damage and whale deaths if they were operating in the U.S.; therefore, they should be held to the same standards of environmental accountability in The Bahamas.