Gov. Bob Riley has told the people of Alabama that he is concerned about the environmental and economic health of our state. He has the opportunity, right now, to show us he really means it. He has publicly stated that he will not allow open-loop technology in liquid natural gas (LNG) facilities to harm the fisheries of the Gulf of Mexico. The clock is ticking on his chance to stand behind his word.

Alabama is an adjacent state for two liquid natural gas facilities that are currently in the licensing process. As the governor of an adjacent state, he has the power to veto these licenses or to require conditions on their approval.

Natural gas is an important source of energy for our country and will be a source of revenue for Alabama's economy. But the technology is new and not all of the impacts are known. We do know that the new pipelines that are being built will go through areas already suffering from environmental and social effects of having heavy industry in their front yards. We also know that a healthy Gulf is crucial for tourism, commercial fishing, and protection of our natural heritage.

There are currently seven open-loop terminals proposed for the Gulf. All of the 36 other proposed and existing LNG terminals around the country are closed-loop. Why should Alabama have to absorb the cost -- in irretrievable natural resources -- so that ConocoPhillips can have a higher profit margin?

Each open-loop reheating system could use up to 200 million gallons of Gulf water each and every day to vaporize the natural gas for distribution into pipelines. The drastic temperature change, chlorination and physical damage caused by the process would destroy fish eggs and larvae by the billions. The cumulative impacts of these facilities would be a significant blow to both commercial and recreational fisheries. Open-loop LNG terminals are currently proposed in essential habitat for shrimp, redfish (red drum), king mackerel, red snapper, blue fin tuna and other important species.

The gas companies prefer open-loop systems because they are a few percentage points cheaper than closed-loop systems. The value of the recreational and commercial fisheries that stand to be lost are much greater.

If the governor fails to act, he is letting the gas companies get away with increasing their already record profits at the expense of our environment, recreational resources and livelihoods. Any increased costs of the closed-loop system will not be borne by the oil companies anyway; they will pass those costs onto the taxpayers and consumers.

We can pay 2 percent more for our natural gas now or pay much more later by having our seafood and recreational fisheries industries destroyed forever. The answer to that decision is an easy one

Only by acting to veto this or other open-loop LNG proposals can Gov. Riley show us he really means what he says.

Sandra S. Nichols
WildLaw, Montgomery