Schumer Announces Strong Opposition to LNG Terminal on Long Island Sound, Cites Potential Terrorist Target, Damage to Environment

SCHUMER ANNOUNCES STRONG OPPOSITION TO LNG TERMINAL ON LONG ISLAND SOUND, CITES POTENTIAL TERRORIST TARGET, DAMAGE TO ENVIRONMENT

Senator Raised Many Questions for Broadwater to Answer on Security, Safety, Commercial and Environmental Concerns

Region too Populous and Environmentally Sensitive to Risk Major Hazard

As plans for a large and potentially dangerous Liquid Natural Gas (LNG) terminal on Long Island Sound move forward, today U.S Senator Charles E. Schumer came out in formal opposition to building it. Two months ago Schumer asked John Hritcko, project manager of the Broadwater project to answer a list of 15 questions on security, safety, commercial and environmental issues surrounding the project. After careful consideration of those answers and after meeting with Broadwater, TransCanada and Shell, Schumer concluded that he could not, in good faith support the effort to build a liquid national gas terminal on the Sound.

"It's true that we must find a way to satisfy the ever increasing demand for energy, but we should be focusing on alternative sources of energy, not on building a security risk and an eyesore in the middle of Long Island Sound that could decimate the ecosystem, has wide ranging public health implications, and could be an inviting terrorist target."

Schumer has long supported finding new sources of energy for Long Island. He was an advocate for the Cross Sound Cable and the Millennium Pipeline and supported building a new power plant in Melville. After seriously considering the issues surrounding the potential LNG terminal in the sounds, he concluded that the negatives outweigh the positives.

"We do need a smart and comprehensive strategy to meet energy needs here on Long Island, but this LNG terminal will take so long and be so controversial that it's going to take our attention away from the real issue at hand. We just don't need another Shoreham," Schumer said.

The proposed LNG facility would be located on the Long Island Sound, nine miles from Long Island and 11 miles from Connecticut. Broadwater, a floating storage and regasification unit (FSRU), would store imported LNG and ship it as a gas through underwater pipelines to New York and Connecticut.

LNG is the liquefied form of natural gas. It is cooled to below minus 260 degrees Fahrenheit and is desirable because it takes up 1/600th of the volume of natural gas in its vapor form. It is pumped into enormous tankers. The terminal would connect with the existing sub sea Iroquois pipeline via an underwater connecting pipeline that would be about 25 miles long. Tankers would import gas from the Atlantic Basin, including western Africa, Venezuela, and Trinidad and Tobago.

Schumer cited various Homeland Security issues, such as responsibility for patrolling around the terminal, when explaining his opposition to the project. When he asked the Broadwater team in a meeting, they replied that it would come under the purview of the Coast Guard. The Coast Guard had previously promised to do more patrolling of Indian Point Energy Center and they were unable to devote the resources to it. "The Coast Guard just doesn't have the resources to devote to projects they are already committed to, how can they possibly be able to commit to this?" Schumer asked.

Schumer discussed concerns over the terminal becoming a potential terrorist target. Other safety concerns include pool fires which occur when LNG spills onto water and ignites in the air. They cannot be extinguished, they burn until all of the LNG is consumed and because it's so hot, its thermal radiation can injure people and damage property a considerable distance from the fire itself.

Schumer is also opposing the project based on concerns over the environment. Building the terminal would begin the industrialization of the Long Island Sound which would allow corporations to take control of a public resource. It would close major portions of the Sound to much of the boating and fishing and other recreational activities that residents enjoy there. It would also place a heavy burden on the Sound's ecosystem, which is already fragile. The LNG terminal would negatively impact the sea floor, the sound water, and could potentially endanger some of the rare marine species found in the sound.

To address those issues, when meeting with Broadwater Schumer expressed interest in lengthening the pipeline so that the sensitive Sound wouldn't be as vulnerable, and so that it could be in a less populous area. Broadwater responded that doing so would require the construction of additional infrastructure to compress the natural gas along its journey to the existing pipeline system.

"It seems to me that though Broadwater may have come up with the easier plan to build, it is not the safest or most environmentally sensitive," Schumer said.

Building the LNG terminal could also undermine the tourism industry which, brings in about 5.5 billion dollars for the regional economy. Additionally, there is no immediate need for a project of this size in the region.

LNG is natural gas cooled to -260 degrees F. The LI sound facility would store the LNG, and warm it as needed back to its gaseous form. It would then pump it through a 25-mile underwater pipeline it will build that will connect to the Iroquois gas pipeline that runs from Milford, Connecticut to Northport, New York.

Broadwater would have a storage capacity of about 8 billion cubic feet, and ship about 1 billion cubic feet daily to New York and Connecticut.

http://schumer.senate.gov/SchumerWebsite/pressroom/press_releases/2005/PR41674.Broadwater.051605.html