Are you kidding me? How many times do we have to say no? (Newsday – Proposed gas port off Jones Beach worries LI opponents)

In today’s Newsday comes this article: Proposed gas port off Jones Beach worries LI opponents. Yep, another  Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) transfer port which would sit 19 miles from Jones Beach… uh.. and Long Beach. Didn’t we sail this ship already? It seems like every year this proposal comes up. How many times do we have to say NO? From the article:

“Can you imagine if that was there when we had hurricane Sandy?” said Claudia Borecky, president of the North and Central Merrick Civic Association. “If there would have been an explosion, what would that have done to Long Beach?”

Claudia is 10000% right, but I’m just worried that it’s going to eventually slip right by us and get passed. I will, without a doubt, vote against any politician who votes yes for this.

Read past articles on this crap here: LNG

LGN

 

Please read the terms of service before you comment.

comments

15 thoughts on “Are you kidding me? How many times do we have to say no? (Newsday – Proposed gas port off Jones Beach worries LI opponents)”

  1. I don’t understand why people oppose this! 19 miles is not visible on even the clearest of days unless you’re on a tall building or the other building is huge. Standing on a 100ft building, you can see ~12 miles. To see something 19 miles away you need a combined height of 181ft above sea level between the 2 points. So the port would have to be 181ft tall to see if you were standing at sea level, or you’d have to be 81ft above sea level to see at 100ft tall building 19 miles way. And you still wouldn’t see the entire thing, just to top which would be so small you could barely make it out. The shipping boats that we see on the horizon off LB are usually about 5 miles offshore by the way.

    People complain about rising gas, electric and other prices but when there’s a way to help mitigate those cost they don’t want to move ahead for the dumbest of reasons.

  2. uh, yeah . . . I’m sure your math adds up and everything but the reason people are complaining has nothing to do with the visual and all to do with the tanker’s contents. Did you not read the huge, black bold paragraph above?

  3. I didn’t see any of the gas ports in NJ affected by Sandy and they’re not 19 mileaward the coast. I think the Civic Associations should stick to trees and such and let the engineers do their jobs to design it safely as they’ve done everywhere else.

  4. “With more . . . [liquefied natural gas] LNG facilities, you’re going to have more fracking” That’s from the article. You don’t want fracking. It’s basically turns land into Chernobyl. There are other ways to create energy. This isn’t one of them. I don’t care about the view. They could put windturbines in the ocean, for all I care. Solar panels on top of every mall on Long Island. use the tides to create energy. Just not this. Once we start commercializing our ocean off Long Island, it’s never going to stop. The floodgates will be open.

  5. Anthony, please stop! No one cares!
    We can’t be bothered with backing renewable energy or stopping something like this from happening. These are just environmental fringe things that give me a headache to think about, so they must not be real.If a couple of people can get rich by screwing the rest of us, or at worst by blowing up Long Beach, we’ll that’s just America 2013-get used to it pinko!

    whyohwhy (who seems to have an interest) says there’s nothing to worry about because we cant see it (you know-just like all the pollution!). Well, that’s a load off my mind!

    So by continuation of your argument, you would favor, 100%, off shore wind farms at a similar distance simply because they couldn’t be seen, correct?

  6. Why? It disturbs the natural habitat of the fish, which is a concern because we eat them. Those of us who are aware, eschew farm raised fish, so those fishing grounds are important. It is just another tie to the fossil fuel that we need to learn to live without. It isn’t needed. NJ said NO last year so, they turn around and try NY again. The only benefit to come from this is making the shareholders of Liberty Gas richer than they already are. Whyowhy can’t you and other supporters look past the immediate and see we are rapidly destroying this planet.

  7. The hurricane would have picked up this platform full of gas and dropped it on Long Beach, resulting in a massive explosion!

  8. Burning petroleum pollutes half as much as coal does, which we reply on so much. I think it’s a good interim solution to using coal until solar, wind and wave technologies catch up and become more efficient.

  9. Not that Im in favor of this fossil fuel infrastructure. But, depending on what the bottom is like where they put it, this might actually attract more fish. A 3 dimensional rocky shoreline will attract and hold way more invertebrates and fish than a flat sandy bottom. Thats why reefs, wrecks, rock piles, and bridges are such fishing hot spots.

  10. I have worked on conventional LNG tankers and regas vessels since 1987. This is not new technology. There was a regas ship on an identical buoy off Galveston TX when Hurricane Katrina blew through the gulf. Not only did it survive unharmed, it didn’t even have to release from the buoy. These ships are among the safest on the planet. There are several of these buoys off Boston and there has never been a problem. Hundreds of cargoes of LNG are discharged in Japan every year without incident. There are over 300 LNG tankers loading and discharging LNG all over the world.
    All this buoy would do is provide cheap clean energy when the demand is greatest.

  11. Another person with personal interest in LNG. I would like to just point out that it is not clean.
    It is “cleaner” than the dirtiest of the dirty no doubt- but that doesn’t make it clean.
    Nice industry scripted talking point tho!!!
    It only saves half the pollution of coal when burned… Too bad that doesn’t include all the things that go on in the mining and fracking for it and liquefying of it that buy back most of the greenhouse gas and toxic pollution savings.
    We need to be spending our time and – All Our Energy – pursuing wind, solar, tidal and wave. They’re all right here!

  12. I really just wanted to address the safety issues of the buoy discharge system. Of course wind, solar, tidal sources of power will be preferable when they are perfected. Until then Natural gas is the best fossil fuel to use.
    Mine are not scripted talking points. I’m just a simple sailor. I just happen to know a lot about the transportation of LNG. I just wanted to calm down all the chicken littles who think the big bad LNG tanker is going to blow up Long Island. I grew up on Long Island and still have a lot of family there, including the south shore. I have zero fear for their safety should this buoy be built and used.

Comments are closed.