LNG Island's Sound

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

Posted at 6:37 AM on 21 Mar 2008

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission on Thursday approved a $700 million floating liquefied-natural-gas terminal to be built in the middle of Long Island Sound. The energy companies Shell and TransCanada are partners in the project, which is expected to supply 1.25 billion cubic feet of natural gas a day to New York and Connecticut -- enough to generate electricity for 4 million homes. Connecticut state officials and some environmentalists have been vocal opponents of the project, saying it would industrialize a popular recreation area and could become an attractive terrorist target. Connecticut's attorney general called the terminal an "environmental atrocity" and vowed to fight the feds' approval in court. The LNG terminal still needs approval from two New York state agencies to proceed.

sources: Connecticut Post, The Globe and Mail, Reuters, Calgary Herald

ADVERTISING POLICY

Comments: (12 comments)

You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have a Gristmill account, log in below. If you don't have a Gristmill account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.

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...

by jabailo at 9:32 AM on 21 Mar 2008

I believe

I 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.

Why not ask why!?

by usandthem at 11:01 AM on 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?

by Wolverine at 1:12 PM on 21 Mar 2008

lng terminal

more lunacy

by earlysnows at 1:43 PM on 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.

by Tasermons Partner at 8:55 PM on 21 Mar 2008

Alternative sites

It'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.

Onward through the fog

by Sam Wells at 9:51 AM on 23 Mar 2008

broadwater

The 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.

by Sunny Green at 11:22 AM on 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.

Onward through the fog

by Sam Wells at 4:49 PM on 23 Mar 2008

LI snobs

Sam, 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

The Orion Grassroots Network: supporting grassroots groups working for conservation, justice, & more

by Erik Hoffner at 5:18 PM on 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.

Onward through the fog

by Sam Wells at 5:52 PM on 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.

by Tasermons Partner at 12:13 AM on 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.

by Wolverine at 12:39 PM on 24 Mar 2008

The comments of Grist users reflect the opinions of those individuals only, and do not necessarily reflect the viewpoints of Grist, its staff, its board members, their psychotherapists, or their aestheticians. Got it?