Public Hearing On Port Ambrose Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) Port (REMINDER)

unnamedPublic Comments on Environmental Impacts to Maritime Administration

Wednesday, January 7th
Hilton New York JFK Airport
144-02 135th Avenue, Jamaica, New York, 11436, USA
TEL: +1-718-659-0200 FAX: +1-718-322-2533
(doors 4:30; hearing starts at 6)

Join the event sponsored by Surfrider NYC Here:
https://www.facebook.com/events/1561916150705873/

Please read the terms of service before you comment.

comments

36 thoughts on “Public Hearing On Port Ambrose Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) Port (REMINDER)”

  1. This is gas for Long Island (not new York), no LNG deepwater port imports have come to the nation since 2009 (or 2010? and even then, only a handful…), and…

    PSEG: LONG ISLAND HAS EXTRA POWER — Newsday’s Mark Harrington: “Ratepayers won’t have to pay for a major new Long Island power source until at least 2024, two years later than previously projected, a PSEG Long Island official said Tuesday. At a session of the Long Island Regional Planning Council at Hofstra University, PSEG Long Island president David Daly said the recently updated forecast builds upon the company’s previous findings that LIPA contracted for far more electrical capacity than it needed.” http://nwsdy.li/1xBKIn3

    Cold snap won’t cost too much in heating and electricity, National Grid spokesman Stephen Brady says. The Times Union reports. http://bit.ly/1xCfmMV

  2. Ok I am still not sure where I stand on this issue and I do believe there are some environmental issues and the question of whether it could be used for export but some of the arguments being put forth against it have no merit at all and distract from having an honest debate.

    The City of LB itself in its anti LNG handout lists the issues as:

    “The construction of an LNG import facility (with potential to export) would negatively affect the Long Beach ecology, safety/security, economy and the quality of life of our residents.”

    “Long Beach is still rebuilding from Superstorm Sandy with many residents not back in their homes and businesses struggling to remain open.”

    “Long Beach is also without a Hospital which causes health and safety concerns.”

    “Port Ambrose is seen as an additional burden during the recovery process.”

    Let me work my way through these but right off the bat the last three are just made up. What does it have to do with Sandy or the recovery from Sandy for homeowners and businesses and it has nothing to do with a hospital.

    Now as far as the “safety” issue I honestly believe this is just made up. It will be almost twenty miles out to sea. The blast radius for the Atomic bomb dropped at Hiroshima was only about five miles (with some reports of broken glass at 12) so an explosion (which granted is possible but highly unlikely) twenty miles out would not have a major effect on LB. If there was a leak at the site the gas would be so diluted by the time it reached land that it would no longer be of a flammable concentration and there would be no oil slick. The pipeline already exists and runs right down LB Rd. so there would be no additional danger. It is already existing. Meanwhile, we have large oil and chemical tankers docking just outside the tree mile limit that if they were to explode would likely have a more significant impact on LB and we would have the added issue of an oil or chemical spill that could be brought right to our door step and remain flammable the entire time.

    As far as quality of life or aesthetics go this buoy system is a huge improvement over the original plan that involved creating an artificial island in the same general area that would be much more visible and the construction of which would have a much bigger environmental impact.

    Finally since NY won’t be “fracking” there won’t be a glut of gas to sell so export likely doesn’t make much sense. Also I am not sure the ships, buoys or pipelines involved here have the ability to liquefy the gas for export, but I will admit I’m not 100% sure on the technology so I would defer to an expert.

    I just feel the issue needs to be argued on facts not fiction so we have an honest debate based in reality

  3. Larry, Since that is reporting LI has enough power generating capacity until 2024, it it safe to that we will also not need to develop any wind farms?

    While the article states we will not need any new power plants what will the plants run on? and where will that source come from?

  4. I am just looking for an honest debate on the project and the issues. I think there is a clear question about the environmental impact of using the seawater to re-gasify the LNG and what that might do to the local environment and the effects of laying a new section of pipeline to connect to the existing one.

    I also see this agenda is being pushed by “Surfrider” which is interesting as everyone was screaming for their heads after Sandy, saying their homes were destroyed because “Surfrider” blocked the original Army Corp of Engineers (ACE) project to fortify the beach. I felt that criticism was unfair at the time as most people’s homes were destroyed by flooding from the bay not the beach. If the original ACE project went through it would not have helped the majority of people during Sandy. Will it again be pitchforks and torches for “Surfrider” when the cost of gas goes up so it costs more to heat their homes and keep the lights on?

    Now the new ACE project was again proposed and pushed through in no time based on the hysterics of the “save us from the next Sandy” crowd rather than a legitimate debate, and the new project still doesn’t address flooding from the bay side of the island in any meaningful way leaving the majority of LB just as vulnerable as on October 29th 2012.

    This is why major issues need to be debated based on facts and science not emotion. Like I have said before I do have some environmental concerns for this LNG project but you have to weigh the issues and see what the real science and facts are, not silly bullet points regarding unrelated issues like the hospital and the people who have still not been able to return to their homes which are very real issues but should not be a part of this debate. I think you cheapen the debate on those issues when you lump them all together with this one.

  5. ME, I agree with you, like you I do not know what to make of the impact of this project. I do know that all the issues raised by the outside interests e.g. SaneEnergy, Surfriders, and Catskill Anti-Fracking Groups are in fact non-issues as you have pointed out.

    Am I missing something or have the Catskill Anti-Fracking Groups abandoned us? They seem to found better use for their time since Prince Andrew’s fracking ban , I guess the LNG issue is not important to them any longer , probably never was, just convenient way to make noise with the sheep of LB.

    All this leads me to one of 2 conclusions, A) this current group in City Hall are just as idiotic as the ones from 2006 who listened to outsiders rather than a realistic debate on pros and cons or B) they know that Cuomo is going to veto the project and by drumming up their opposition (robo-calls, meetings, one-pagers) they can use that in their future political endeavors. “That thing was no good (we told you it was no good), you believed us and we fought it down.”

    I agree that the safety/security issues are overstated and the Sandy related concerns are a farce. The fact that we don’t have a hospital? How does that relate to a facility being some 21+ miles off our coast?

    You mentioned environmental concerns, can I ask what you feel those concerns are?

  6. Captain my questions about the environment are;

    They will use seawater to re-gasify the LNG which is super cooled, so there will end up being a bloom of cold water around that buoy. I’m unsure of the volume of water used in the process so I have no idea how big that patch of extra cold water will be or what effect it will have on both the sea-life and seafloor in the area as well as could it cause any kind of localized weather phenomenon. I’m an avid fisherman and boater so these are legitimate questions in my mind.

    Second what effect will there be in laying the new pipeline to connect to the existing pipe to LB. Admittedly most effects of this will likely only be temporary while the work is done and I imagine nature would repair itself, meaning the seafloor, but what will the temporary effects be; could it stir up some kind of toxins from the bottom? Could it cause water turbidity issues? Of a more permanent nature would the pipeline go through any known habitats such as reefs, wrecks or bottom structure that are used by fish and other sea life and also can help protect from storms.

    Finally, whatever the environmental effects would be, how would they effect the economics in relation to both the recreational and commercial fishing industry?

  7. Me,
    It is truly a shame that your questions/concerns have not been addressed rather than the reasons listed on the nonsensical flyer put out by the city.

    I was not aware of the LNG Regasification using seawater. That appears to be a relevant concern.

    I would think the new pipeline being submerged would like you said be a temporary impact and would in all likelihood be less impact on turbidity and toxins than will come from the Army Corps plan. And currently Fire Island has begun their replenishment project so those 2 Army Plans will have much greater impact than this trenching and all will be temporary.

    I myself am not a fisherman, but for the onshore fishing, I would posit the same effect or worse will come from the Arny plan and both will be temporary. Let me ask you – Do recreational fisherman travel 21 miles off our coast to fish? Do commercial fisherman do the same?

    I look forward to seeing what other people have to say on there issues you raised.

  8. As far as 21 miles goes, some recreational fisherman do go that far and even further and absolutely commercial guys do. It all depends on where the fish are. Right off the bat they would lose the “security zone” around the buoy but it’s a big ocean so as long as it’s not on a prime spot that loss of fishing area is a non-issue for me.

    Now as far as the regasification process goes:

    From Wikipedia: “Regasification is a process of converting liquefied natural gas (LNG) at −162 °C (−260 °F) temperature back to natural gas at atmospheric temperature. LNG gasification plants can be located on land as well as on floating barges. Floating barge mounted plants have the advantage that they can be towed to new offshore locations for better usage in response to changes in the business environment. In a conventional regasification plant, LNG is heated by sea water to convert it to natural gas / methane gas.”

    It is as I understand it a closed loop system using heat exchangers to use the warm seawater to re-gasify the LNG. In essence brining in warm seawater to warm the gas then discharging the colder seawater after its “warmth” has been exchanged to the gas. In another technical article I found online it states that a seawater gassification system needs 160,000 gallons of water a minute and is returned to the sea at a minumum of 45 degrees. (SOURCE: http://www.cbi.com/images/uploads/technical_articles/LNGjournaljulAug06.pdf ).

    That’s a lot of cold water pouring into the ocean every minute, and will certainly have an effect on the surrounding areas water temperature but the question is how big an effect? Also how much microscopic sea life, plankton, krill, Etc. will go through the system and what will happen to them? These types of creatures are the base of the ocean food chain.

  9. Ok: Mea Culpa on my part. I am spreading mis-information albeit non-intentionally. While doing my research on this I missed a page on Port Ambrose’s website about the project where its states:

    “The SRVs will use closed-loop vaporization, a process that utilizes natural gas heat exchangers rather than sea water to regasify the LNG, and eliminates the uptake of aquatic organisms in the water column. Ballast water uptake by SRVs is approximately 90% less than vessels of similar size frequenting the New York Bight. Ballast water is taken in through specially screened sea chests at a velocity recognized by NOAA to prevent the entrainment and impingment of aquatic organisms. Port Ambrose’s SRVs will be zero discharge during port operations – produced water from the vaporization process is re-circulated along with ballast water and used for engine, generator, and vessel cooling water needs while grey and black water are stored in holding tanks”

    So half of my environmental concerns have been eliminated. I can only argue to the construction of the connecting pipeline now.

    Worst part of all this is that it looks like its only me and you Captain Obvious who even care to talk about the issue in a sensible way!

  10. I’m with you guys, Capt and Mein. Like much of the environmental lobby, this opposition isn’t about facts, but it’s about forcing an agenda that destroys America’s capitalism, wealth and opportunity.

    I have yet to see one point of opposition that’s anything more than a misleading lie. It goes beyond scientific ignorance — it’s downright misinformation.

    Nobody’s shown how this would adversely affect the environment, aid terrorism, destroy waves 21 miles away, interfere with NY Rising payments, move the hospital to Oceanside, cause fracking in Long Beach or harm circus elephants — all claims by the opposition.

    God gave you a brain to differentiate you from chickens who drown in the rain. How can you even start to believe this stuff?

    Yet you continue to re-elect people who think you are so stupid that you would buy these lies.

  11. I instinctively feel this is not a good plan for this unindustrial area of the coast, but other than environmental issues I can’t state reasons. What I would be more interested in seeing are valid, feasible reasons for why this is a good idea. And more specifically why here.

  12. CP, I would say the coast is already to some degree already industrialized with items that would surely be more environmentally hazardous to our coast than an LNG facility some 21 miles offshore. Right now this evening there are 8 oil/chemical tankers anchored approx. 7 miles off shore. These 8 ships are carrying multiples of the amount of oil that as spilled from Exxon Valdez. Ships have been anchored in that location for as long as I have lived here but now a single LNG tanker is going to cause mayhem and catastrophe.

    As to the benefits, I am not sure what the gas market is like, but I believe since National Grid and Williams Transco are running a new pipeline through Riis park there would appear to be an increased demand and since there is a bottleneck getting gas to the metro area, this increased gas would be undoubtedly used.

  13. @ MeinLB and the Captain – Just because you write more, doesn’t make you more right. And to Eddie, I think you’ve taken your criticism far afield by asserting that those in opposition are “forcing an agenda that destroys America’s capitalism, wealth and opportunity”. Collectively, the three of you are so quick to find fault with those opposed to the LNG terminal. The “scientific ignorance”, as you called it, of the pitchfork wielding Surfriders flunkys can only be supplanted by your naivety of asking for “honest” and “scientific” debate from the Energy industry. Seriously? When the F#&k was the last time we ever heard honest and scientific debate from fossil fuel energy conglomerates? Call me stupid on this one but if a third grader said “whales won’t come to Long Beach any more” and a Williams Transco pipeline executive said “whales love these re-gasification terminals”, I’m voting with the kid. For every nonsensical weak emotional argument against Port Ambrose, there are probably 10 proponent lies backed by fraudulent science. Where’s my pitchfork?

  14. Its startling to see some of these environmental groups such as Citizens Campaign and SPLASH come out against the LNG pipeline construction. When at the same time they are also advocating for construction of the Bay Park sewage outfall pipeline! I can’t tell if it is ignorance or hypocrisy.

  15. CAVE: Have I used profanity? No. That is the first part of civil debate. We remain civil! Have, I said I’m 100% for this? No. Do I admit there are legitimate environmental issues? Yes.

    I’m just asking that we talk about it in regards to real issues. What does this terminal have to do with LB getting a hospital back or people not returning to their homes, or the Aesthetics of LB?

    As far as hypocrisy goes, I was making the point that two years ago people wanted the head’s of Surfrider after Sandy because Surfrider was able to get the original ACE project blocked. Think back at the discussions and comments from that time that were on here the patch and everywhere else. They (Surfrider) were the evil surfer crowd from out of town that destroyed LB. Now they are falling right back in behind them again. That is hypocrisy. I was simply asking the question would people go after Surfrider again down the line over this project it it caused them some form of harm specifically financial harm.

    I have admitted when I’m wrong in the past and always will, I am no expert. That is why I seek out information and try and debate the issues.

    I will even back of my statements in regards to the stated claims by Port Ambrose that they won’t use seawater in the re-gasification as there are many types of these ships in the world and it is entirely possible that one that uses seawater could make a port of call here.

    Having said my piece there. Please tell us what your specific objections are to the project and what fact you have found? I will say it again I’m not convinced either way on this so convince me with a debate don’t insult me.

  16. YOU MEN ARE IGNORANT!!! Dont u know what fracking is gonna do the the most precious water here in Long Beach? And what about the pollution fracking is going to do to the marine life? SKULL!! People in Long Beach dont even have a hospital yet and many of us are still not in are homes from sandy. We have to stop BIG $$ MONEY $$$ INTERESTS $$$$: bank$, oil companie$ and congolomorate$ from taking money from the sea!!! That money belongs to the 98% Not the 2% that is taking it!!! when terrorists who may not be islam want to get us they will blow up the LNG and long beach will just be a memory!!!! What about your children? The oil will be washing up like in the golf of mexico. This is TERRIBLE. We have to say NO untill LNG gives 98% of the money to US the little people!! and they build a new hospital. and its not funny how the circus elephants are treated. PETA says thousands die evey year but thats another story IGNORANT FAT CATS!!! Bless Eramo for standing up to Big $$$!!!

  17. There are no advantages to Long Beach! This project will bring 6, yes ONLY 6, long term full time jobs! The other jobs will only be temporary to build the thing.
    There will be no tax revenues to Long Beach. Port Ambrose LNG will be offshore and not in our jurisdiction… NO buckies for us.
    We don’t need LNG in this area. Natural gas is liquified so it can be transported long distances by ship etc in a safe manner. This area has plenty of nat gas from the existing pipeline. We don’t need LNG. This terminal will be used to EXPORT LNG internationally (probably Europe). This will increase demand for US nat gas, meaning prices of nat gas go up here in the US and the cry to do more fracking only increases.
    Having a LNG facility offshore is a great risk to our area! Unlike the existing natgas pipeline that runs in our area (but many miles under the sea floor) this facility will be at the water’s surface! That’s what makes it such a big terrorist target. Why would we want a big flammable “processing plant” on the water’s surface near the most densely populated area in the Country? This is the part where having a hospital opened locally matters. When there is an attack, or just say a big F-UP (like the kind BP had in the Gulf of Mexico), wouldn’t it be nice if there was a place to actually triage the injured?
    Here’s the biggest problem (that CAVE was referring to)…the operator of this facility will get all the profits and we are taking all the risk! Do you think you will be adequately compensated when there is a leak in our waters? When they build this thing they will be disrupting tons of waste that was dumped in that area decades ago. Our fishing and swimming water will be contaminated by this disruption. This will happen! Not just a maybe…. What are we getting for the contaminated waters in our area. NADA!
    This is not the area to be putting in a LNG facility. Period, exclamation points!!!!

  18. I do not support this LNG project and I don’t think ANYONE who commented earlier does either. I think they are simply stating that the most common arguments against LNG (including yours) are filled with sensationalism and conjecture.

  19. @ STEPHEN, well said and that is my point! I am on the fence on this issue and realize there are environmental concerns that need to be addressed and I want to have a real discussion. So on to my second part;

    @LET ME SPELL IT OUT: First please don’t take any of this as insult, again I am just trying to spark legitimate and civil debate so here are a few questions I have for you;

    First since it has been cited as a reason for opposing this project, how is LB’s Sandy Recovery affected by this terminal?

    Same goes for how does LB hospital relate to this terminal when its 20 miles out to sea and closer to many other hospitals in NYC and NJ than to LB?

    Will the sediments you discuss be disturbed by the ACOE project to rebuild our beaches? Do you oppose that?

    Will the sediments be disturbed if they were to build a wind farm and the electric cables that would require as well the creation of an even larger security exclusion zone? Do you oppose that?

    If an accident were to happen and say the whole thing went up in a fireball, would it be bigger than the Hiroshima Bomb? If no, what effect would it have on LB?

    If the facility is to be used for export how would the gas be converted from a gaseous state to LNG as it can’t be done on the ships and there are no plants to do so nearby and none are currently proposed anywhere near by?

  20. @MeinLB. I used psuedo-profanity by inserting the “#&”. It is said that swear words have automatic access to primitive parts of the brain. It’s a way of forcing your listener to pay attention. And apparently it worked. Are you Icelandic by any chance, where mein means disease? Or is MeinLB just a reference to that silly old book Mein Kampf in which Hitler lays out a “civil debate” of his political ideology? What part the brain were you trying to access by chosing MeinLB as your moniker? As for the LNG Terminal, it “will” be built unless the public stops it, and not it “will only” be built after public input and honest and open scientific findings of the Energy Industry. If the public needs the Surfrider Foundation, and pitchforks and torches, so be it. The alternative is to sit around like you and wait for them to be honest with us. Oh that’s right, they already proved they are willing to listen – by holding the only public session during rush hour in Jamaica NY over the holidays.

  21. ME, There is actually a floating liquefaction vessel being built, it is designed to be anchored over off shore gas deposits and convert the output directly to LNG. The cost for one of these vessels is staggering (est >$12B) that it would never be used for Port Ambrose. At that price point it will be a few years until Petronas will even see if that 12B was a good investment.

    Let Me Spell It Out, As Stephen noted we are trying to ask questions and get answers. Do you know how many miles under the sea floor the existing pipelines are run? And if the proposed pipes were run at the same depth would that lessen the impact?

  22. Hey CAVE thanks for insulting me versus debating! Perhaps “Mein” refers to “My LB” as a term of endearment versus me being a Nazi or a disease.

  23. @MeinLB. A term of endearment? Similar to Mein Coney Island Baby? You chose it because it is subtly controversial, attention getting. I used f#&k because it accesses a primitive part of the brain and for much the same reason. I didn’t say you were a disease or a Nazi. I was pointing out the aforementioned. And while the arguments of the lack of a hospital, aesthetics, and people not back in their homes is quite ridiculous, so is your blast radius analysis of Hiroshima. Maybe I’m wrong, but I don’t think people are snapping up apartments in the outskirts of Fukishima or near LNG explosion sites just because the corporations that were responsible say it’s all clear.. You know full well that if there is so much as a trash bin fire on an LNG supertanker at Port Ambrose that news crews will line the boardwalk reporting “Just on the horizon is a nuclear explosion size accident waiting to happen, I’m coming to you live from Long Beach”. And what do we get for that? Bupkis. Clearly we don’t need external help in making Long Beach a tough sell and I’m not about to let some LNG port add to it. We’re not getting anything from Williams Transco or any other energy supplier. We take the risk, they take the money. I personally don’t care how low the risk is. I don’t want it, the vast majority of residents don’t want it. Now if there was a trade off for taking the risk I might be more amenable. Free energy for your school district, long term Insurance against a move in home energy prices, etc. Nothing in it for Long Beach, as I said before, where’s my pitchfork?

  24. @CAVE: Your use of “Pseudo Profanity” for shock value does nothing for the debate on the issues. If you want a real debate or to sell your view you would offer up a real argument other then “we don’t get anything for it.”

    I originally was and still remain generally opposed to it on environmental grounds but I like to look at it from an academic rather than emotional point that is why I am trying to debate it on the issues and educate myself, and I have to say I have learned a lot about LNG in researching it.

    We seem to agree that a good portion of the city’s and other’s objections to this are based on nonsense when it comes to Sandy and the Hopsital, Etc. All I want is a real debate on issues not hysterics and fear mongering which is driving this debate now. When it comes to the safety issues, do some research, you will see they are being exaggerated.

    Sandia National Labs (not the LNG industry) did a study “Breach and Safety Analysis of Spills Over Water from Large Liquefied Natural Gas Carriers” in 2008. As part of their conclusions they found that; “For offshore operations, where there might be less surveillance or control, credible intentional threats could be larger, with a nominal breach size of about 12 m2. From the analyses presented, the most significant impacts to public safety and property from an LNG spill and fire are within approximately 700 m of a spill, with lower public health and safety impacts at distances beyond approximately 2000 m. Vapor dispersion distances for a spill for these offshore operations for the larger capacity LNG carriers or regasification carriers could extend up to nominally 5000 m. Given the location of many of these proposed offshore facilities, the hazard distances suggest that there might be minimal impact to public safety or property from even a large spill. As such, risk management might best be directed at providing approaches, measures, or systems to ensure that the offshore facilities and operations are maintained sufficiently offshore such that they do not inadvertently or inappropriately impact near-shore public safety and property.” (You can just google Sandia Labs study of LNG, there is a 2004, 2008 and 2012 report.)

    So a 5,000 meter spill radius is what they determined was likely from a twelve square meter breach of an LNG ship, that is roughly a 39 foot by 39 foot hole, which is what they determined would be likely by an intentional (terrorist) breach the gas spill would likely spread only 3.1 miles before disapating, that’s a long way from 19 miles. They determined the impact to safety and property (damage) would likely be between 700 and 2000 meters, or just over a mile. In another updated study from May 2012 the determined the actual area of “fire” would be in the order of a few hundred meters and would burn itself out in under an hour. So again the “safety” issue is just not there in the real world or they are no more dangerous than all the ships you can see off the beach right now that are even closer and just as subject to terrorist or accidents.

    Finally in the highly unlikely scenario that the whole thing goes up in one big explosion like an atom bomb. I will stick by my guns there. From the Avalon Project of Yale Law School; “The Atomic Bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki : Chapter 3 – Summary of Damages and Injuries; “In both cities the blast totally destroyed everything within a radius of 1 mile from the center of explosion, except for certain reinforced concrete frames as noted above. The atomic explosion almost completely destroyed Hiroshima’s identity as a city. Over a fourth of the population was killed in one stroke and an additional fourth seriously injured, so that even if there had been no damage to structures and installations the normal city life would still have been completely shattered. Nearly everything was heavily damaged up to a radius of 3 miles from the blast, and beyond this distance damage, although comparatively light, extended for several more miles. Glass was broken up to 12 miles.” (Source: http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/mp03.asp ) And I don’t want to diminish the death and suffering of Hiroshima by using it as an example but it is an example people know and recognize.

    So at 12 miles from an A-Bomb, some glass broke, we will be an additional seven miles from that distance. If the unlikely and probably impossible sudden detonation of the whole ship did occur, what do you think the effect on the boardwalk would be other than a loud boom?.

  25. @MeinLB. That’s great research. Now can you condense that into talking points for our real estate agents for after the first accident? And while your at it, can you research the likelihood of my living room filling up with seawater again and let my insurance company know?

  26. Indeed, as someone has pointed out – the reason to oppose this is simple – “there is nothing in this for us”. There is alot of false hype about this, alot of false fears. The reason to oppose this is simple – we assume all the possible risks of an environmental impact (a legitimate one) along the oceanfront, and get nothing in return. If this project could cut my taxes 25%, or provide funding to replenish the beaches so our flood insurance rates could fall and the selling price of my house would be sustained – I would be in favor of it, assume some risks and get some rewards. But in this case, its all risk for us and no rewards, so why support it?

  27. @MeinLB, you don’t get it and I don’t know how to make it any more clear. You accuse the public of knee-jerk reactions based on conjecture and emotion. And then, after an accident, or even the possibility of one,you expect the same public to educate themselves with the litany of research you provided to remain calm. How about making a decision to buy property in Long Beach or invest in a business here? I guess they won’t be influenced by emotion and rely on science, right? . Tankers leak, pipelines leak, gas explodes. It’s happened before. It’s a fact. It doesn’t even need to happen to make Long Beach a less attractive investment. And if it does, we’re finished financially. Like I stated before, We take the risk, Transco takes the money. Why then even take the risk? No one gives a crap about Hiroshima and some Yale research on fallout. We care about the fallout to our community. You sound foolish thinking nothing will happen to Long Beach in the event of accident. Do you think I care that my window pane won’t break from an explosion or that my house will be worth 40% of what it is now?

  28. Yes, succinct and on target. The City’s arguments against are largely scientifically specious, overstated, sensationalized, or disconnected from the specific question of environmental impact. Hearing those arguments at Wednesday’s meeting made me cringe even as I showed up to express my disapproval.I’m against it because it opens the door, creates precedent, for more industrial development of our Atlantic seaboard. I’m flat out NIMBY on this, and anyone who has seen the impact of industrial development on the west coast probably feels the same.

  29. CAVE we are just going to agree to disagree on this, one I guess.

    Again I have said there are legitimate environmental concerns that need to be weighed and I am still on the fence when it comes to how I feel about this project. So maybe in the end we will agree but for different reasons. We all have our opinions I guess.

    At least we can agree (I Hope) that a lot of hype regarding issues that are not relevant to this project (Sandy recovery, a hospital, Etc.) have been injected into the debate and shouldn’t be a part of it.

  30. I would think at the heart of the “What’s in it for us question” is the impact 400,000 cubic ft per delivery will make on our energy supply and associated costs both today and in the future.

    We all have very real energy needs. I am content with what it costs to heat and power my home with gas even when we have these occasional cold snaps like this week. Therefore I don’t see a need for it TODAY.

    However, will natural gas still be just as affordable 10-20 years from now when our kids or grand kids are buying and heating new homes and more Long Islanders are converting from oil to gas? Will this extra supply be necessary in that future world to meet the increased demand and strain on infrastructure?

    I don’t know the answer but I hope to find more credible discussion of this as I read the Draft EIS.

    I personally see the biggest risks being associated with the dredging period. The disturbing of bottom sediments, the potential loss of reefs and wrecks that were not picked up by the initial side scan sonar surveys.

    The loss of fishing grounds due to an exclusion zone.

    The potential for larger scale ocean infrastructure projects to follow.

    And an overall increased dependence of fossil fuel.

    I think this submersible buoy concept is definitely more palatable than the artificial island proposed in 2010. But at the moment while gas is cheap I don’t think any further reduction in price is worth it.

Comments are closed.