The proposed view from Wading River Beach
Posted on 03/24/2008 11:55:07 AM PDT by thackney
WASHINGTON, DC, Mar. 24 -- The US Federal Energy Regulatory Commission has approved Broadwater Energy LLC's application to construct the first floating LNG terminal in the US.
Approval of the project in Long Island Sound after more than 3 years was subject to the operator's adopting more than 80 mitigation measures to enhance safety and security and minimize environmental impacts, FERC said in its Mar. 20 announcement of the decision.
FERC Chairman Joseph T. Kelliher said the commission carefully considered concerns expressed by many citizens about the project. Approval was based on all available scientific facts and was subject to rigorous conditions because the project can meet New York City, Long Island, and Connecticut's projected energy needs safely, securely, and with limited environmental impacts, he said.
John Hritcko, Broadwater senior vice-president, called the action "an important step forward in bringing new, clean, reliable natural gas supplies to a region where prices are volatile and climbing, air quality is a concern, and [which] is located at the end of the pipeline delivery system."
Broadwater is a joint venture of TransCanada Corp. and Shell US Gas & Power Co. The project aims to deliver up to 1.25 bcfd of regasified LNG to electric power plant and home heating customers. The project would be 9 miles off the coast of Riverhead, in Suffolk County, NY, and 10.2 miles from the nearest onshore point in Connecticut, FERC said.
It said the proposed project would include eight LNG storage tanks capable of storing the equivalent of 8 bcf of regasified LNG, a regasification plant, and a 21.7-mile long pipeline from the terminal to a subsea interconnection with the Iroquois Gas Transmission System which will bring the gas onshore.
Hundreds of comments FERC said it received hundreds of public comments in response to the commission staff's environmental impact statements expressing concerns about public safety and security, possible impacts on Long Island Sound, and the need for the project. It noted that the draft EIS was 825 pages long and the final EIS ran more than 2,200 pages. The proceeding's total record contains more than 7,100 exhibits, and FERC's review took 38 months and 25,000 staff hours, it said.
In response to concerns that the project would industrialize Long Island Sound by establishing a new industrial precedent and stimulating new development, FERC found that 4,000-7,000 commercial vessels/year pass through the sound, as many as 2,000 of which transport oil and petroleum products. It found no basis for thinking project approval would stimulate new offshore industrial development.
It said the more than 80 mitigation measure in the project's final EIS include requirements for Broadwater to submit plans to the commission's energy projects office at least 60 days before construction detailing how FERC's order will be implemented.
Broadwater also is required to develop an emergency response plan as a condition of FERC's approval, and coordinate procedures with the US Coast Guard; state, county, and local emergency planning groups; fire departments; state and local law enforcement services; and appropriate federal agencies, FERC said.
The project's developers also will need to file documents with the state of New York for determination that the project is consistent with the state's coastal management plan under applicable provisions of the federal Coastal Zone Management Act.
Intervenors will have 30 days to petition for a rehearing, FERC said.
The proposed view from Wading River Beach
Most will be outside the B.L.E.V.E. but will hear it.
Bad as that is, it I will be even worse at night when it’s lit up.
The view from the same location, the closest viewing point is hardly visible at night either.
find images of all current and proposed site views of the new FSRU
http://www.broadwaterenergy.com/index.php?page=site_views
They protested placing one of these off the coast of Malibu. It was claimed that an explosion, even 12 miles off the coast would equal the apocalypse lol. NIMBY rules in the liberal mindset.
Blumenthal and Rell are planning on fighting this.
I wish they would take a look at my NG bill each winter. More supply in the area is a good thing IMO.
“It noted that the draft EIS was 825 pages long and the final EIS ran more than 2,200 pages.”
Brought to you courtesy of my boss - environmental lead for Broadwater.
Very good news. Floating LNG terminals are long overdue, and vital to our energy supply. They pose zero risk to local residents and, as the accompanying illustration shows, are scarcely even visible from shore. We need to get more of these approved for other locations on both coasts.
First, everything for miles around would be flattened by the force of the liquid turning to gas. The sudden drop of pressure of the LNG would instantly cryogenically freeze everything in the initial blast radius.
Then the gas would ignite — creating an even bigger explosion. The heat would incinerate everything.
If you were nearby, you would be blown down, frozen, blown up, and burnt in a fraction of a second.
Not that there's anything wrong with that.
That's why the floating terminal is miles from shore.
Nonsense.
Those and other ridiculous myths are addressed at: http://www.netl.doe.gov/publications/proceedings/02/ngt/Quillen.pdf
That's why the floating terminal is miles from shore.
Most existing LNG facilities exist onshore. Some have operated for decades.
LNG terminals are off-shore for a reason.
SANDIA REPORT
Guidance on Risk Analysis and Safety Implications of a Large Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) Spill Over Water
http://www.fossil.energy.gov/programs/oilgas/storage/lng/sandia_lng_1204.pdf
LNG/Fireballs
Two types of combustion modes might produce damaging pressure: ‘deflagration’ and ‘detonation’. Deflagration is a rapid combustion that progresses through an unburned fuel-air mixture at subsonic velocities; whereas, detonation is an extremely rapid combustion that progresses through an unburned fuel-air mixture at supersonic velocities. For low reactivity fuels such as natural gas, combustion will usually progress at low velocities and will not generate significant overpressure under normal conditions. Ignition of a vapor cloud will cause the vapor to burn back to the spill source. This is generally referred to as a ‘fireball’, which, by its nature, generates relatively low pressures, thus having a low potential for pressure damage to structures.
LNG/Air Explosions
Certain conditions, however, might cause an increase in burn rate that does result in overpressure. If the fuel-air cloud is confined (e.g., trapped between ship hulls), is very turbulent as it progresses through or around obstacles, or encounters a high-pressure ignition source, a rapid acceleration in burn rate might occur [Benedick et al. 1987]. The potential for damaging overpressures from such events could occur under some limited spill and dispersion scenarios, specifically in confined areas. However, effects will be localized near the spill source and are not expected to cause extensive structural damage.
LNG terminals are off-shore for a reason.
Most LNG terminals, including the ones operating for more than 3 decades in the US without any significant event, are onshore.
Existing and Proposed North American LNG Terminals
http://www.ferc.gov/industries/lng/indus-act/terminals/exist-prop-lng.pdf
What percentage of these are off-shore?
I found something I was searching for last night and could not find.
If you are interested in more information about why that map was false, follow the link:
A Guide to LNG
http://www.ferc.gov/for-citizens/citizen-guides/citz-guide-lng.pdf
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
In accordance with federal safety standards, vapor gas dispersion distances must be calculated to determine how far downwind natural gas vapors or a cloud could travel from an onshore LNG facility and still be flammable. The standards require that the vapor exclusion zone must not reach beyond a property line that can be built upon, thereby resulting in a distinct hazard.
Because a fire would burn with intense heat, each onshore LNG container and transfer system must also have thermal exclusion zones established in accordance with Title 49, CFR, Part 193. Activities within the thermal exclusion zone are also restricted. The thermal exclusion zones must be legally controlled by the LNG terminal operator, or a government agency, to ensure adequate separation between members of the public and the heat from any fire.
- - - - - - - - - -
The reasonable fire hazard does not extend beyond the property of the LNG facility.
What are your reactions to the news that New York is expected to reject the LNG terminal?
http://www.courant.com/news/local/hc-broadwater0410.artapr10,0,2576800.story
I’m not trying to be provocative here — I’ve learned a few things from this thread, & I’m interested in your take(s) on this news.
Cortés-Vázquez had faced a Friday deadline to rule on whether Broadwater fits in with her state's policies on the use and protection of coastal areas.
She found the project inconsistent with six of 13 criteria under New York's coastal zone management plan, Bysiewicz said.
I could not find any more details in other articles. The facility has already been approved by FERC.
http://www.ferc.gov/news/news-releases/2008/2008-1/03-20-08-C-1.asp
I went to a lunch presentation today for the Freeport, Texas LNG facility (onshore, by the way) that should receive their first ship on Monday. I have friends who were on the design and commissioning team.
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.