A Few Closing Words on a Closed File: Liquefied Natural Gas and the Long Island Waterfront
Saturday, August 21st, 2010Four years of public opposition have finally sunk the Atlantic Sea Island Group’s (ASIG) proposal to construct a liquefied natural gas (LNG) terminal 13 1/2 miles off the coast of Long Beach, New York. While the company’s decision to withdraw its application represents a victory for locals and environmentalists alike, the proposal’s dismissal from the public eye also leaves Long Island in the same quandary as before. If energy consumption continues to increase, where will it come from?
Late in 2006 the Manhattan-based developer ASIG announced its project to install an artificial island called the Safe Harbor Energy port; they formally submitted an application to state and federal agencies the following year. The plan detailed construction of a 60-acre artificial island a dozen miles off the coast and situated outside existing shipping lanes. Developers expected that the site may process 2 billion cubic feet of LNG per day to provide power and jobs to residents of Long Island. Due its location the plan required approval from authorities both in New York and New Jersey.
Liquefied natural gas is the same mixture of methane and other hydrocarbons present in any traditionally acquired source of natural gas. The difference is that the natural gas is temporarily converted to a liquid form to make transport over long distances more efficient. The Safe Harbor Energy port would act as a receiving station for international shipments of LNG—mostly from Russia—and convert the liquid back into a usable gas form. Among the benefits cited by ASIG of switching to LNG are its relative inexpensiveness and the flexibility that having at least one station in operation might afford to consumers: options push prices down. Proponents of such terminals also claim that switching to LNG would decrease the country’s dependence on the Middle East for fossil fuel resources.
Soon after the proposal went public, residents of the Rockaways and Long Beach, the town most proximate to the terminal site, rallied to have the application overturned. The Central Long Island chapter of the Surfrider Foundation and a purpose-made Taskforce Against LNG Island both organized rallies for the cause.
While natural gas has been touted as the greenest of the fossil fuels, the process of liquefaction, transport, and regasification requires extensive energy input. A study conducted by Paulina Jarmillo at Carnegie Mellon University calculates that the sum of these added factors makes LNG nearly as dirty a fuel as coal. Processing plants also typically release as a by-product nitrogen oxide, which was shown in a 1997 U. C. San Francisco study to correlate with higher rates of asthma, emphysema, hypertension, and heart failure.
Additionally the construction of the artificial island would disrupt marine life in the region considerably. Though the terminal would occupy only 60 acres at the surface, it would expand below the tides to cover 110 acres of ocean floor with fill from Ambrose Channel. Not only would this destroy a large swath of underwater habitat near to shore, but the commissioner of Long Beach’s Zoning Board of Appeals, Ray Ellmer, speculates that the construction could also release toxic debris leftover from a nearby decades-abandoned oceanic dumping site.
Adding to the aggravation, ASIG long delayed its release of an environmental impact statement. The document was reported to be only 75% complete as of last October. Even now it has not materialized.
Opponents of the plan were not exclusively environmentalists, however. Both local lawmakers and businessmen were underwhelmed by the proposal to exchange one foreign fuel dependence for another. Many residents of the seafaring community were not eager to have an industrial plant so close to their waterfront, a place they felt best left to boating and fishing. Other town officials worried that the terminal, so close to New York Bay, could become a target for future terrorist attacks.
Despite a unanimous vote by the Long Beach City Council during the first quarter of 2009 to veto the project, the prospect loomed in the local consciousness and continued to attract attention. As recently as this past April, environmental activists and lawmakers from across the South Shore—including both Democrat Dave Denenberg and Republican Denise Ford—were attending rallies to close the file on Safe Harbor for good. At about the same time New Jersey Governor Chris Christie sided with the opposition.
In large part the events that pushed ASIG to withdraw its permit application from the Maritime Administration have less to do with the overwhelming local opinion against the project and more with the global economy. With the aftermath of BP’s Deepwater Horizon disaster still playing out in the Gulf of Mexico, the market viability of offshore energy stations looks less than stable to future investors. Even though fears that a similar incident could occur here are somewhat misguided—natural gas does not produce a slick like oil—the flammable substance still presents great safety risks for improper handling. Thus the application has been removed, but may be resubmitted at a point when the financial risks are less intimidating. This fact has some of the South Shore’s most adamant crusaders still a tad apprehensive.
Now that some of the hubbub has settled, the dismissal of the Safe Harbor Energy port leaves New Yorkers much where they before: an imminent energy crunch. While it is easy for a conscientious person to advocate higher efficiency homes and more responsible energy consumption, it is another task entirely to reverse a trend of several generations that favors expansion and the path of least resistance. While individuals can affect change in their own habits, as Bayshore businessman Roger Jette has done in redesigning his factory to run off of solar power, the needs of a society can be met only by innovation at the problem’s source or a drastic shift in the cultural expectations.
This is the fork in the road faced not only by Long Island but by nations. If not from imported fossil fuels, if not from nuclear reactors, where will the power come from? And the complimentary query: how much do we really need?
Somewhere between these two questions lies a solution—however partial—to the problem at hand. While residents of the South Shore may for a time find relief in the folding of ASIG’s proposed terminal, their victory is one battle in a greater war—a war that has no clear-cut heroes or villains.
