County Legislature Opposes Liquid Gas Facility in LI Sound

by Judy Silberstein

(March 13, 2008) A proposal to install a natural gas storage and re-gasification facility in the middle of Long Island Sound found no friends at the Westchester County Board of Legislators on March 11. By a vote of 15 to 0, the legislators passed a resolution opposing the project. Legislator Judy Myers, who represents Larchmont, Mamaroneck and other Sound Shore communities of the 7th District, co-sponsored the legislation with Thomas Abinanti, from District 12.

The resolution called on the county’s federal and state delegation to support the Westchester Legislature in its opposition to the project because, among other reasons, it “would pose a serious risk of accident and terrorist attack and carry negative environmental consequences.” (See: Liquid Natural Gas Proposed for Long Island Sound: Update.)

The project, proposed by Broadwater Energy (a joint venture between Shell Oil and TransCanada Corporation), would consist of a boat-like structure, about the size of a luxury liner, which would receive shipments of liquid natural gas from tankers, store it and then re-gasify it for distribution through underwater pipelines to New York and Connecticut. The company has said the facility will “provide much-needed natural gas,” from a source that would be more reliable and less expensive than current alternatives.

Illustration from www.broadwaterenergy.com

The project has been under review by both federal and state agencies. The Federal Environmental Review Committee has approved the project, Connecticut is opposed, and New York has yet to issue its opinion, but was expected to announce a decision in April.

That date might be moved back in the wake of the sudden resignation of Governor Eliot Spitzer. Lt. Governor David A. Paterson, who will be formally taking over the top spot on Monday, March 17, held a press conference the day after Mr. Spitzer’s announcement and, when asked about the project, said he may need more time to consider it. (See: City Room, March 13, 2008.)

Resolution?

“Is this [resolution] binding? No, but I sure hope we won’t have to have this thing in the middle of the Sound,” said Ms. Myers.

It’s not that we don’t need alternative energy, because we do,” she added. “But to place this facility in the middle of the Long Island Sound simply because it’s less expensive than placing it in the ocean, where it won’t have nearly the same environmental impact, is ridiculous,” she said.

Ms. Myers said, “Over a billion dollars have been spent to restore Long Island Sound. Placing a natural gas facility in the Sound after all this expense completely contradicts our efforts to preserve this magnificent resource.”

The resolution cited impact on lobster grounds, recreational uses, commercial fishing and tourism. For security reasons, there would probably be a 500 yard no-navigation zone around the floating facility.

For larger map, see: www.broadwaterenergy.com

It is not clear what specific impact the project would have on local communities – its proposed location is nine-miles offshore and closer to New Haven, Connecticut than Larchmont, NY. However, there has been local opposition to the plan from environmental organizations, such as Citizens Campaign for the Environment and Save the Sound.

Mamaroneck Town Councilwoman Nancy Seligson, a former president of Save the Sound, said she opposed the project for a number of reasons, and not just on the basis of environmental concerns. “The #1 reason I’m against it is that it is a violation of the public trust,” she said. “You are creating a 2-mile, no-go zone in the middle of the Sound – you can’t swim, you can’t boat, you can’t fish.” Furthermore, she said, the tankers supplying the facility will be traveling up the Sound with their own security escort and surrounded by their own “no-go” zones.

Rather than approving – or even opposing – projects such as Broadwater on a piecemeal basis, Ms. Seligson said she would prefer to see a regional energy policy that would “determine what’s needed and the best way to satisfy it.”

Front Page

Print This Page
Email this page