SOUND REASONS TO OPPOSE TERMINAL

IN regard to “Surge in gas plan worries” (GA, 5/5), it’s obvious concerns over the proposed liquefied natural gas (LNG) terminals are widespread, and with good reason.

The first choice for such a terminal was Crib Point, in Western Port Bay, which was rejected by the state government on the basis of threats posed to the marine environment of Western Port Bay and the proposed pipeline course to Pakenham.

A comparison between the tidal range and currents in Western

Port and Corio Bay clearly demonstrates the latter is a far less qualified choice than the former for the origins of such a development, given that the tidal range at Crib Point and rate of water exchange is many times greater than that of the Corio Bay inner harbour, which has the least tidal range of anywhere in Port Phillip.

Add the minimum 30ha of dredging required for the implementation of these LNG terminals and mooring facilities – of what is arguably contaminated ground – and once again environmental issues come to the fore.

However, the overarching issue with establishing an LNG terminal is safety: it is too close to settled areas – for confirmation, Google LNG terminal disasters.

That reference opens the door to quote the title of just one article, “The horrifying history of liquefied natural gas”.

Geoff Wilson, Whittington