Feds approve floating liquefied-natural-gas terminal in Long Island Sound 12

Comments View as Flat

1. 

   Delay And Deny Posted 2:32 am
   21 Mar 2008

   Popular When?The last time Long Island was hip, Blue Oyster Cult had a few songs on the charts.  Yeah, those great days of guys and gals driving their Red Firebirds and Camaroes to "Captain Salty's" Pub (or whatever) in Port Jefferson...

   Permalink

2. 

   usandthem Posted 4:01 am
   21 Mar 2008

   I believeI believe that this is a subject that should be called to the attention of presidential candidate Hilary Clinton.She is after all the current senator from New York.She can have an influence on this issue.
   
    I believe that it is the wrong place to put a possible bomb,due to terrorist action.Unfortunately,in this day and age we have to take terrorism into the equation when we build things nowadays.

   Permalink

3. 

   Wolverine Posted 6:12 am
   21 Mar 2008

   Missing Spitzer Already?This could be the first major instance where Elliot Spitzer's absence really hurts, because his administration may not have approved of this project.  Will the new, more conservative governor's administration approve it?

   Permalink

4. 

   earlysnows Posted 6:43 am
   21 Mar 2008

   lng terminalmore lunacy

   Permalink

5. 

   Tasermons Partner Posted 1:55 pm
   21 Mar 2008

   We already had a thread on this......believe it or not, some of the local wetlands groups actually backed this, since the alternative was to build the terminal on land.
   Then again, I'd personally prefer it didn't get built anywhere at all.

   Permalink

6. 

   Sam Wells Posted 2:51 am
   23 Mar 2008

   Alternative sitesIt's not a question about building an LNG terminal on land or a floating platform inside Long Island Sound. Alternative sites were offshore of Long Island and New Jersey, well out of the ship traffic lanes and away from the more sensitive bay / sound ecosystem.
   Indeed, two other companies are proposing exactly that, and I would support these oceanic sites. The FERC did an injustice by not comparing impacts to these alternative offshore sites, and merely went with what Broadwater wanted to do.  
   So now New York is left holding the bag, like approving incomplete air permits (DEQ) and approving a questionable consistency review with their coastal management plan (State Department). Unfortunately, any decision will be purely political and not based on a review of silly little things like facts. I don't envy the new Governor.  

   Permalink

7. 

   Sunny Green Posted 4:22 am
   23 Mar 2008

   broadwaterThe area certainly needs more energy, but we could do without another target or floating disaster.  Local resistance has been strong, hopefully the north shore snobs can put stop to this in the same way that the south shore snobs halted the offshore wind farm.  

   Permalink

8. 

   Sam Wells Posted 9:49 am
   23 Mar 2008

   Snob Terror Potential?I don't thing that the Cape Wind - the Nantucket offshore wind farm project - is a good comparison. Opposition is not about a snob's views or the risk of the potential conflagration from a terrorist strike. But the project will kill a whole bunch of fish and restrict fishing and recreational boating, among other sins. Cape Wind will not interfere with boating and could actually improve the fishing.
   But the restriction zones - done to protect the facility from terrorists and madmen - will be quite large and each LNG tanker will have one-mile separation zones even while inbound from Montauk all the way to the LNG terminal. It would basically turn Long Island Sound into a demilitarized zone, a DMZ if you will.
   Still those aren't the main reasons to object to Broadwater.

   Permalink

9. 

   Erik Hoffner Posted 10:18 am
   23 Mar 2008

   LI snobsSam, I think Sunny Green refers not to Cape Wind but to the offshore wind project proposed for the south shore of LI. That project was recently halted, ostensibly by economics, but it's widely believed that opposition (from LI snobs?) had a lot to do with the dreary economic reforecast the utility cited when it killed the idea.
   Erik

   Permalink

10. 

    Sam Wells Posted 10:52 am
    23 Mar 2008

    Oh, didn't think about that ...I didn't mean to get on Sunny Green and I've heard about all kinds of offshore wind farms such as off Long Island, Plum Gut (or as we call it, Anthrax City), Block Island Sound, and so forth. The truth is, investing in deepwater wind farms is extremely expensive, often 2-3 times as much as on dry land.
    Nothing done in the deepwater is "safe," as we found out after Hurricane Katrina that tossed billion dollar offshore oil rigs like toys. That's because water is nearly 9 times more dense than air.

    Permalink

11. 

    Tasermons Partner Posted 5:13 pm
    23 Mar 2008

    Odd consequence?...But the restriction zones - done to protect the facility from terrorists and madmen - will be quite large and each LNG tanker will have one-mile separation zones even while inbound from Montauk all the way to the LNG terminal.
    Would these restriction zones prohibit other vessels from approachin' the ships or the offshore platform?
    If it did, then it might have the odd, unitintended consequence of protectin' the area from overfishing.

    Permalink

12. 

    Wolverine Posted 5:39 am
    24 Mar 2008

    No Offshore Anything!Power generation should be as close to those who consume the power as possible.  Natural areas, whether on land or at sea, should not be defiled with this garbage.  The only ecologically friendly solution is to require that all roofs have solar panels, all yards and parking lots have wind generators, and no building may use any more energy than it produces.

    Permalink