Posted on 02/12/2007 2:38:03 PM PST by thackney
SMITHTOWN, N.Y. — It would be about as long as the Queen Mary 2 ocean liner and would supply enough natural gas to heat 4 million homes a year.
And it would be right in the middle of Long Island Sound, halfway between densely populated areas of New York and Connecticut.
Although years from generating power, a proposed floating liquefied natural gas terminal is churning up controversy and uniting politicians, environmentalists and activists in both states.
The proposed $700 million terminal is part of a growing national debate over the presence of liquefied natural gas facilities in coastal cities. The issue has affected communities from Massachusetts to Texas, as cities grapple over environmental and security concerns while also trying to create more energy infrastructure to deal with rising demands.
Natural gas is used to heat more than 60 million homes in the U.S. and it is increasingly important as a source of fuel for power producers.
Energy demand is especially robust in the area that would be served by the Long Island terminal. About half of the gas would go to New York City, the nation's largest city with 8 million people. Between 25 and 30 percent is targeted for Long Island, and the rest would go to Connecticut — both densely populated areas.
The proposal also carries political implications: Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani's company served as a consultant for the project, and the likely 2008 presidential candidate has visited communities this week where public hearings were being held on the proposal.
Meanwhile, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton — Giuliani's potential 2008 rival — has spoken out against the project.
The debate received renewed attention this week as the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission began hearings on whether to allow Broadwater Energy — a consortium of Shell Oil Co., a Houston-based subsidiary of Royal Dutch Shell PLC, and TransCanada Pipelines Ltd. — to build the terminal about nine miles off Wading River, N.Y., and 10 miles south of New Haven, Conn.
Broadwater officials say the terminal is needed to meet the growing demand for natural gas. They site the New York State Energy Plan, which projects a 37 percent growth in statewide natural gas use by 2021; Connecticut forecasts the use of natural gas for electric generation will hit 47 percent by 2008.
Broadwater estimates it will reduce natural gas and electricity prices by an average $680 million a year in the region. The median savings for customers, according to Broadwater, will be $300 per year, a figure critics dispute.
Hundreds of residents showed up at the hearings, held in both Connecticut and Long Island, to let their views be known on everything from the environment, security, the need for alternative energy, and the potential threat to the fishing industry in Long Island Sound.
Giuliani said the proposed terminal would be "as safe a facility in design as you could possibly have."
He said employees would have thorough background checks, and the company was committed to using the latest security technology available. And he said the proposed terminal would be far enough from the New York and Connecticut coasts to avoid major problems in the event of an emergency.
"Just in case the worst thing happens, there could be no impact on the Long Island shore or Connecticut shore," he said Wednesday before a meeting on the proposal at Smithtown High School in Smithtown, N.Y.
But Clinton reacted with skepticism about the project's safety. "The safety and security risks involved with this project have not been addressed. I am very concerned about ... who will bear the burden of first response should an accident occur."
Natural gas is shipped in massive refrigerated tankers after being cooled and condensed into a liquid referred to as liquefied natural gas. Under the Broadwater proposal, LNG tankers would dock at the terminal, and the fuel would be warmed up to a gas. It would then be pumped through an existing underwater pipeline system that serves Long Island and Connecticut.
A Coast Guard security analysis last year said additional measures, including more firefighting capability, would be needed to manage risks to navigation safety and security. However, the report found the terminal would likely not be an attractive target for terrorists because of its remoteness in the middle of the Sound, but it did recommend escort boats for LNG carriers to help prevent terrorist attacks or shipping accidents. A security zone around the facility also was recommended.
Rep. Timothy Bishop, a Democrat who represents eastern Long Island, said the Coast Guard would require 65 to 70 more people to patrol the Sound, as well as an additional vessel, if the terminal opens.
"The question is: Who pays for that?" he said. "Perhaps more important is the question of whether it is appropriate to put that extra demand on Coast Guard resources when their primary responsibilities are port security and search-and-rescue."
Susannah Pierce, a Broadwater spokeswoman, said Broadwater would be willing to pay for any firefighting facilities needed to protect the terminal, but that security concerns were being exaggerated.
(Well, that's how the headline should read.)
Well if it blows up, they are back where they started. If it does not blow up everyone saves $300 a year in heating costs.
What is the problem here?
NIMBY!
All these NIMBY's have back yards that must extend AT LEAST 10 miles. For crying out loud, it these fools drew a circle around their homes with a raduius of 10 miles and got to decide what went up where inside that circle....then nothing would ever be constructed anywhere.
jas3
So what is the blast radius?
Follow the money!
LNG tanker blast would impact {1} mile radius
http://www.energyprobe.org/energyprobe/index.cfm?DSP=content&ContentID=12107
In its minus-260 degrees liquid state, LNG cannot explode and is not flammable. If a missile or explosive should tear a hole in a tanker or a storage tank, however, the escaping liquid would be transformed instantaneously into a gas and probably would ignite in a massive fire.
The Sandia scientists identified "several credible" terror scenarios that the report said would result in at least one - possibly as many as three - of a tanker's five cargo tanks being breached. That would ignite a pool of fire to spread several hundred yards in all directions, the report said.
While "the most significant impacts to public health" and the most severe destruction of buildings would be within a 550-yard radius of the fire, heat that could burn the skin and damage houses could extend to nearly a mile away.
I don't know, but when that small munitions blew up in Halifax harbor, it took out almost the entire city. Imagine what something the size of the QE2 could do, especially if a few miles of gas cloud accumulated before it blew up. It would be an awsome fuel air bomb.
No corporate executive with half a brain would relocate or expand in the north east with the impending shortage of gas.
Especially as our own supplies dwindle at the rate they are. Soon all LNG will be imported, either from Canada or the ME.
I guess they think windmills and solar panels will do the trick.
thanks for that research ... so basically, those on shore get a great light show in a worst case scenario.
They are fighting this deal like crazy around here. The last meeting was held my my towns high school auditorium.
A bunch of people asked me if I was going to the meeting, and I said yeah, to support it. My gas bills are high enough already, we need some relief and better infrastructure! They nearly dropped.
Besides, the company I work for does heavy marine construction. i want a chunk of building this sucker!
I would have been able to clearly see this from my old house. I was a coouple miles inland, but way up high. I could clearly see fireworks going up on Long island all the time in sping and summer.
Are you sure about that? Take a look here at the views from the different beaches with the facility installed.
http://www.broadwaterenergy.com/index.php?page=site_views
Importing LNG is rididulous.. how bout developing it and exporting some to Canada and Mexico..
Proven Reserves it is closer to 10 years. But I agree there is a lot of gas reserves not proven because we are not given access to drill it.
Natural Gas Consumption
http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/ng/ng_cons_sum_dcu_nus_a.htm
Natural Gas Reserves
http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/ng/ng_enr_sum_dcu_NUS_a.htm
So LNG imports are going to quadruple over the next 23 years. I know Cove Point is expanding but where is all the rest going to come in. I think Exxon is planning a new facility near Galveston but those won't meet the demand. I just hope the States that are forward looking and have built the facilities charge an arm and a leg to those States that decline to have the facilities.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.