Long Island Residents Nervous About Floating LNG Terminal Proposed Near Riverhead by Robert S. DeLuca Although most of the Group for the South Fork's work is focused directly on protecting the local South Fork environment, from time to time, significant environmental threats emerge in our region that require our attention and collaboration with other concerned conservation advocates. One such threat is the recent proposal by Broadwater Energy (a joint venture between Shell Gas & Power and TransCanada Pipeline USA) to develop a floating liquefied natural gas (LNG) terminal on Long Island Sound just nine miles off the coast of Riverhead's north shore. This facility is one of nearly 50 active applications for similar terminals under review around the country. There are currently only five actively operating LNG marine terminals in the continental U.S. and to our knowledge none of these facilities employ the floating terminal design technology proposed by Broadwater. The terminal would accept approximately 150 supertanker shipments annually (two or three every week) of liquefied natural gas (maintained in refrigerated tanks at -260 degrees Fahrenheit), which would be returned to its gaseous form at the terminal. It would then be shipped via a new undersea pipeline along the north shore of Long Island for 25 miles where it would connect up with the existing Iroquois pipeline off the coast of Northport. Virtually all approval authority for this project lies with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), the Department of Homeland Security and the U.S. Coast Guard. The role of local governments in this review process is significantly limited, heightening the importance of strong public participation in the review process. The development and operation of the Broadwater terminal raises significant issues regarding its potential impacts on the marine environment. Ironically, over the last twenty years more than $1.5 billion dollars have been invested in cleaning up Long Island Sound, in part to protect an estimated $5.5 billion in economic value that is annually derived from the Sound's many resources. At the Group for the South Fork we are also concerned about the possible implications of a major tanker failure, terrorist attack or hijacking that could result in a firestorm of untold proportion. Each LNG tanker holds between 33 and 66 million gallons of natural gas, and can take up to five miles to stop. In the event of a major tanker fire, there is virtually no way to extinguish the blaze. Fires may also arise from vapor clouds created by leaking tanks. Such clouds can drift before experiencing suitable conditions (i.e. the appropriate mixture of gas and air) for ignition. Should such clouds move toward land, the implications of a subsequent vapor cloud fire could be disastrous. The platform itself would be designed to hold some 93 million gallons (8 billion cubic feet) of gas in floating storage. Should either the tanker or facility catch fire, the consequences could be devastating. Just last year, a fire in an Algerian gas liquification facility killed 30 and resulted in more than $1 billion in property losses. Back in 1944, a tremendous fire at a liquefied natural gas facility in Cleveland killed 128 and leveled a square mile of the city. Perhaps the most sobering insight into the possible implications of this project comes from the Department of Homeland Security itself when it stated, "[t]he Department of Homeland Security remains concerned about Al-Quaeda's continued interest in aviation including cargo jets to carry out attacks on critical infrastructure, as well as targeting liquid natural gas, chemical or other hazardous materials facilities." (Press release dated November 23, 2003.) In light of the fact that LNG tanker traffic heading to the proposed Broadwater facility will travel in close proximity to a nuclear submarine base, the Millstone nuclear reactor and the Plum Island Animal Disease Center, the concerns expressed by Homeland Security Officials seem particularly potent. In the coming weeks, the Group will join with dozens of other conservation and civic organizations to express our opposition to this facility and our views as to what federal officials should be evaluating as they consider both the environmental and security implications of this proposed energy project. What You Can Do: Learn more about the Broadwater Energy Project from: Anti-Broadwater Coalition www.stopbroadwater.org (516) 390-7150 Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) www.ferc.gov (866) 208-3372 Broadwater Energy - detailing its view of the project: www.broadwaterenergy.com Write to your federal representatives and ask them to oppose the development of a floating liquefied natural gas terminal and encourage them to press for local input in the decision-making process before the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. Congressman Tim Bishop 3680 Route 112 . Suite C Coram, New York 11727 Phone (631) 696-6500 Fax: (631) 696-4560 www.house.gov/timbishop Senator Hillary Clinton 476 Russell Senate Office Building Washington, D.C. 20510-3204 Phone: (202) 224-4451 Fax: (202) 228-0282 www.clinton.senate.gov Email: senator@clinton.senate.gov Senator Charles Schumer 313 Hart Senate Office Building Washington, D.C. 20510-3203 Phone: (202) 224-6542 Fax: (202) 228-3027 www.schumer.senate.gov Email: senator@schumer.senate.gov Top Ten Exporters of Liquefied Natural Gas in the World (Source Houston Energy Group - 2000) Indonesia Algeria Malaysia Qatar Australia Brunei United Arab Emirates Nigeria Trinidad USA Libya According to the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, liquefied natural gas terminals are of continued interest to international terrorists. Given the list of leading natural gas providers around the world, the safety of LNG shipments and background information on tanker crews is a growing concern.