Representatives opposes Long Island LNG terminal

Representatives opposes Long Island LNG terminal Local politicians voiced opposition to a proposed floating liquefied natural gas terminal in Long Island Sound at a hearing held this week by the U.S. House of Representatives subcommittee on Coast Guard Maritime and Transportation.
   Broadwater Energy, a joint venture of subsidiaries of Shell Oil Co. and TransCanada Corp., wants to build and operate a permanently moored terminal — essentially a LNG tanker without propulsion — for LNG import, storage and regasification.
   It is one of about 40 LNG terminals that are seeking permits from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (for onshore sites) or from the Coast Guard and Maritime Administration (for floating terminals.) Today there are four LNG terminal on the U.S. mainland and one in Puerto Rico.
   John Hritcko Jr., senior vice president and regional project director of Broadwater, said the project would bring a new source of reliable, long-term, competitively priced natural gas supply to the Long Island, New York City, and Connecticut markets.
   He said the terminal, which could deliver 1 billion cubic feet of gas per day, would have “extremely compelling” economic benefits.
   “Broadwater estimates that wholesale energy savings to the region would total nearly $10 billion over the life of the project. This savings translates into approximately $680 million per year during the first years of service,” he said or about $300 to $400 per year in direct and indirect energy cost savings to a typical residential customer.
   But Suffolk County Executive Steve Levy said the 312 tanker trips through Long Island Sound would be “an intolerable burden on our residents and others who utilized the sound for maritime commercial activities.” Fishermen, recreational boaters and trans-sound transportation would be disrupted, he complained.
   Bill McGintee, East Hampton town supervisor, said the movement of the LNG carriers “is going to have a huge, detrimental impact on the East End of Long Island. The ships are so dangerous that the Coast Guard requires a moving safety zone around them 6,000 yards long and 1,600 yards wide. That is 60 football fields long and 16 football fields wide, moving with the ship at 10 knots.”
   However Stephen E. Flynn, a senior fellow in national security studies at the Council on Foreign Relations, said a terrorist attack on the facility — which would be located offshore 10.2 miles from Connecticut and 9.2 miles from New York, “would not endanger the general public. As such, it can offer no real appeal to terrorists who are intent on causing mass U.S. casualties.”
   In contrast, he said a successful terrorist attack on LNG carriers calling at an existing terminal in Boston presents a much graver risk.
   He drew up a scenario for a successful attack on an inbound LNG tanker as the ship makes its final turn to transit to the Distrigas terminal on the entrance of Boston’s Mystic River, and found it could create a fire that would burn at 3,000 degrees Fahrenheit for 30 minutes, “throwing off enough heat to incinerate everything within four-tenths of a mile of the vessel.
   “Given the number of people living and working on Boston’s waterfront and the difficulty of quickly evacuating such a congested area, the immediate lost of life is likely to be 10,000 or more. There would be a large number of subsequent fatalities due to inadequate capacity at hospitals to treat all the burn victims,” he said.
   Rep. Rosa L. DeLauro of Connecticut issued a statement saying the project violates the public trust, and “its approval would most certainly set a precedent for further industrialization of the sound.”