Proposed Liquid Natural Gas Plant [Only Public Hearing is tonight at the Allegria Hotel]

LNg

A proposed Liquid Natural Gas Plant off our coast. Hey, didn’t we sing this song already? How many times to we have to tell all these assholes involved that WE DO NOT WANT THIS? Heck, I’ve been blogging about it since 2009!!!! Oh, that reminds me:

ATTENTION ALL NEW YORK POLITICIANS, WE WILL VOTE YOU OUT OF OFFICE IF YOU LET THIS PLAN PASS. 

For those looking for additional info on why this proposal is so bad, please head over to our friendly-neighbor blog Making My Point and read Liquid Natural Gas Port Off Pt Lookout!? Some of the highlights include:

  • It will not lower prices it will increase them by opening up higher priced export markets-all the cheap markets are here in the USA
  • It’s a huge disaster waiting to happen.
  • There will be continuous spills etc. including millions and millions of gallons of water used and contaminated on purpose in the building that will just be released into the ocean -that’s just the way it’s done.
  • There is no need for this project, and not here least of all. The ones in Boston sit almost idle because it is not needed
  • (read more @makingmypoint: Liquid Natural Gas Port Off Pt Lookout!?)

So what can we do about this? Go the The Allegria Hotel (80 West Broadway, Long Beach, NY) tonight for the ONLY PUBLIC HEARING.

Allegria Hotel  
80 West Broadway, Long Beach, NY 11561
Tuesday July 9th, 6 pm to 8 pm

LNG

I AM HOPING TO SEE THIS ON THE FRONT COVER OF NEWSDAY TOMORROW, SINCE IT EFFECTS ALL OF LONG ISLAND AND THE TRISTATE AREA.

 
                                                                                                                                                        
lngportmap

Please read the terms of service before you comment.

comments

31 thoughts on “Proposed Liquid Natural Gas Plant [Only Public Hearing is tonight at the Allegria Hotel]”

  1. This will only help us… still don’t understand why everyone is against it. Even environmentalists don’t have a leg to stand on since it will replace burning coal, the dirtiest fossil fuel! If you read about alternative energy you have 3 options: solar (still too inefficient to be cost effective), water/wave (HIGH cost) and fuel cells (guess what they run on? natural gas!). Check out the Bloombox currently being used by many fortune 500 companies as their primary source of power, using the power grid as their backup!

  2. If the market for gas in Europe and Asia commands a higher price than can be had here than the gas will be shipped to where they can make the most profit. Giving access to those markets will not help us. Our price will go up to meet the market amount.

    The bloom box has not caught on, strangely. I saw the 60 Minutes report on it a couple of years ago.

    If the public perceives that our ocean has been degraded, we will not attract the visitors that our local businesses depend on. They will go elsewhere. Why struggle to come back only to have the crowds stay away?

    It does not make economic sense to us.

  3. The Bloomboxes are still very expensive, and Obama has cut the tax benefits for using them by a substantial amount (Obama talks green, but he really loves coal), so unless you’re using all of the capacity it’s not as cost effective as it could be. Like solar, they will improve on cost/efficiency. Most companies utilizing Bloomboxes use them for data centers where power demand is high and cannot be lost. They are made in 250kW increments, most homes need 5kW… the feature on 60 Minutes of a small Bloombox for everyone’s home is still 5-10 years away, but once that happens we would be wishing for a plant like this if it’s not built.

    Still haven’t seen the plants degrade the ocean as everyone mentions, or a hurricane damaging them. Remember Hurricane Sandy? How many plants in NJ were damaged? Have they degraded our ocean? More than likely… you didn’t even realize they were there 🙂

  4. I personally don’t feel very comfortable with the thought of having that out in our ocean. It’s enough to make me want to move out of the area completely. I am on pins and needles already. Like what Larry says about the idea of our ocean being degraded -This will do it.

    With the advent of LED light bulbs, as we make our transition to that technology, will keep the power demand at level. Most of the street lights in Long Beach are LED already. yes, we are using more electric gadgets all the time, but microprocessors are becoming more and more energy efficient. The Intel Haswell is the best example.

    There are also better ways to generate electricity. What about offering more incentives for people to install solar panels? We have so many roof tops on Long Island. Let’s utilize them.
    Enough with the industrialization of our ocean.

  5. For Superstorm, not even hurricane, Sandy there were 33 foot waves measured off Sandy Hook. the measurement is an average, likely there were 50 foot waves that day. I am not comforted by assurances that they think they will withstand that force.

    Ask the people of the gulf or Quebec how hollow the assurances they were given before the drilling started or the rails started carrying explosve materials are now.

    Too bad about the advances being so far off for energy efficiency. Amazing how the computer went through such a rapid improvements in one generation and yet the fuel industry keeps us in the dark ages.

    This will not be a plant, it will be a pipe with a terminal for ships to load LNG. This will likely tie in to fracking in upstate NY.

  6. “For Superstorm, not even hurricane, Sandy there were 33 foot waves measured off Sandy Hook. the measurement is an average, likely there were 50 foot waves that day. I am not comforted by assurances that they think they will withstand that force.”

    But my point is the existing pipelines and terminal in NJ did survive Sandy…

  7. It’s interesting that the fight against this is being led by surfrider – their opposition to the 2006 ACOE project actually did cause the destruction of Long Beach during Sandy, and now they are hyping that this LNG plant will destroy LB if it blows up. It’s 19 miles offshore. An Hiroshima sized atomic bomb could go off 19 miles offshore and it wouldn’t even break a window in LB. This project might not be a good idea for various other reasons, but fear of explosion isn’t one of them. Opposition to this is coming from the environmental left, who don’t want any energy development of any kind, including fracking for natural gas which is very clean.

  8. This is right smack dab in the middle of the area designated for potential wind farms so it would kill that possibility. The corporation is based in the Cayman Islands, they couldn’t care less about energy costs here except as a way to lure unsuspecting fools into believing this is a good idea. The terminal in Massachusetts is under utilized, so this terminal is unnecessary. This project will be used to advocate for fracking in NY. And finally, if it is such a great proposal, why did they try to fast track it, and give so little warning about the public hearing, which was held at an inconvenient time?

    Some of you just have to blame Surfriders for everything. And, btw, I am not a surfer and I opposed the ACOE plan previously proposed because it was not a good plan for Long Beach. You are like a scratched record, same few notes…over and over and over.

  9. I was very happy to see council person Goggin there as a city representative and Shnirman too. I’ve never been a big political person but these people have gone above and beyond in the last year. It feels great to have local officials who are really looking out for us

  10. Forget all the fear mongering – explosions, dredging is dangerous (what is going to happen when the ACOE project starts to rebuild the oceanfront, that will also involve alot of dredging, is that going to opposed also?). The plan only makes sense if long island gets a big share of energy royalty revenue from this project, both from the terminal itself and the fracking (which is also perfectly safe) that will open up in upstate NY to supply the terminal. Absent that, I’m against it, why should we take the terminal if there isn’t anything in it to reduce burdens on taxpayers – but at least that’s a real reason to be against it, as opposed to unfounded fears about catastrophes of various kinds. Oh, and those windfarms decimate bird populations and affect the fish as well, and they produce very little electricity and are a net cost to taxpayers because they need subsidies to operate. That train explosion in Canada was caused by opposition to oil pipelines being built – moving oil by train or tanker truck is far more dangerous than building a pipeline.

  11. The 2006 plan did not address bay side flooding. Only after that was exposed did congress authorize a bay side study. After Sandy the ACE offered a beach side plan again. The bay side study was only funded after Sen. Schumer recognized the risk it posed and got the money/project. I do not fear monger.

  12. I’d disagree with that on many levels… other than publicity and hiring some Town of Brookhaven buddies for $100k+ positions, what have they done? oh, don’t forget taxes going up 50%… from $8k to $12k for me.

  13. What is a good plan for LB then? Dunes makes the most sense… compare AB and Pt. Lookout to LB during the storm. If the City of LB had participated in the dunes from 2006, therefore making them continuous along all of the island of Long Beach, we all would have seen much less flooding. Agreed something needs to be done on the bay side, but I’ll take protection from pounding waves on one side over no protection at all.

  14. I agree Steve. Scares me to think these guys are going to get reelected because people don’t really see how awful these guys are. All they see are Facebook photo ops.

  15. Also worth noting that PTL is at a 13′ elevation. of course they fared better than we did, especially in our lower elevation areas in the west end and canals, no denying that water finds its level and our lowest points are at risk until measures are taken to address those risks.

  16. We should be looking for ways to get away from fossil fuels not building more ways to utilize them. Taxes and fees these companies agree to pay when they are trying to get a project built always get protested ten or twenty years down the line. Back in the day, LILCO made all kinds of agreement to get approval for the Northport plant and Island Park plant and they have been protesting the tax rates for the last ten years.

    All this BS about 600 jobs? Get real! This isn’t even a US corporation……they couldn’t care any less about OUR economy or environment, they simply have a good PR firm and good talking points.

  17. Larry, it would be better to stop referencing the bay side argument as the rationale for defeating the ACOE plan. These are two separate issues, the bayside one a much more difficult one to address, and I hope you know that. When people live on canals in a very low lying area with ocean surging into a narrow channel, the only ways to protect them are ugly and expensive and involve dealing with property rights/eminent domain. Tall expensive sea walls, tidal control at the channels(sea gates), raising homes or condemning private property for mitigation projects is neither popular or as easy as the ocean side ACOE plan that was defeated. Schumer is jumping on every popular bandwagon he can find and it’s good he found the money for a bayside study, but we all know what that study will tell us. Mayor Bloomberg knows and is proposing radical expensive mitigation. Sadly, our Canals and bayside west end will not receive the priority that downtown Manhattan/Wall Street gets on this. Major portions of our city’s south side would have been much better off had the dune been in place, so this “water finds its level” argument is spurious with respect to the damage done by Sandy south of Park Ave.
    That said, anyone who knows anything knows that those who were against the ACOE plan never envisioned what played out with Sandy and would never have been against the plan if they could imagine what was possible. Yes, there are those who have been trying to warn us, Assemblyman Weisenberg and Morris Kramer and the ACOE come to mind, but we couldn’t fathom their description of what a Sandy like event would visit upon us. Larry, don’t buy into Sam’s blame game, we are beyond that.
    Re LNG, follow the fracking money… NYS wants it and this is part of the plan. Yes their will be, as there is now, higher profits for exporting this gas, but it’s the tax windfall for NYS is like manna from heaven…just look at what it has done for the bottom line in Pennsylvania. I don’t like it, but people are constantly clamoring for more services with lower taxes. Fracking tax revenues help politicians promise more for less. Train wrecks in Quebec and dike and levee failures in New Orleans are anecdotals in the march of “progress”, history is full of them, but it never negates the overall benefit of “progress”. Whether this LNG plan or fracking represents “progress” when green energy resources(albeit costlier) finding their way onto the market, is the question here. Right now, I’m with you…I don’t see the industrialization of our ocean as “progress” or worth the potential negative impact. Thanks for your efforts.

  18. We will never be able to address bay side flooding given all the private ownership. We do need to replenish / re-plant these dunes that were destroyed as quickly as possible, aesthetic concerns be damned.

  19. Dunes? What dunes? We ain’t got no freaking dunes! We have piles of sand that could possibly disappear in the event of a large slow moving storm that lasts through a few high tide cycles. If you want to see dunes look at EAB, Lido etc. Those are dunes. Still there post Sandy. That’s why those areas weren’t affected as much as LB.

  20. I understand well that the plans are separate now. Been trying to keep all fronts on the radar with those that can affect change.

    I am not against a dune, i have stated this publicly (CC meetings) many times. I think it would be prudent to have people that care to come out and watch the sand as it is droppped on our shores as there have been unexpected mishaps when the dredging begins. THat is a long way off for now though. We are vulnerable still.

    i will do what i can to get information that helps us to the people that need it.

    Right now I see too much risk in the proposed LNG plan. Anything that could potentially lessen the number of people that come off the trains and hurt the local business owners is not a good thing. Too much is not known about the dredging, monitoring and materials that would be used to test pipes etc.

    i cite the other fuel disasters in my comments at the hearing as I believe we are being told how safe we are though when things go wrong those same people are not held accountable and really it is too late anyway, you can never reverse the damage. I have heard that the oil is still just beneath the surface in Alaska. That is a long time ago.

    Happy to talk with anyone about this topic if you want to meet at a local restaurant for a pop. lemoriarty@gmail.com The more info I can get the better.

  21. actually, half the reason why we had a fuel shortage after the storm was because, in fact, those facilities went down during Sandy. so yeah, enough with that argument.

  22. This LNG plant is a done deal, perhaps with some minor modifications to demonstrate compromise. New York State is broke, can’t raise taxes more because the productive sector is leaving for other states. They cannot reform their budgets because Democrat voting blocks will never give up their share of the pie – so new money has to come from someplace. Energy royalties are it. Fracking, natural gas development and export revenues, will bring energy royalties to pay the State’s massive unfunded liabilities for municipal workers, teachers, etc, and its huge welfare state bills. This project would never have gotten as far as it has, if the players in Albany weren’t already on board.

  23. You just sound ignorant… the facilities going down due to widespread power outages is very different then them exploding off-shore, which has been the crux of this conversation. Also to point out, I believe laws are going (or already have gone) into effect that pumping stations will need to have generators on-site to remain functional during disasters such as Sandy so the power loss is not a bottleneck.

  24. Problem solved then! Bring the ridiculous astronomical teacher and cop salaries back down to earth and we’ll have plenty of funds left and will not need the LNG plant. 😉

  25. Cuomo would have shot this idea down already if it was going to go down, why even bother letting it get this far – public hearings, etc. Who is going to be “voted out” as the article above suggests? NY is a solidly Democratic state, they are running people like Weiner and Spitzer who will be elected easily. Who are you going to “vote out” – Cuomo, Sheldon Silver? No way, not in this state. If the Democratic power structure wants it, if the money has been placed in the right hands to make it happen – its happening, environmental concerns be damned.

Comments are closed.