Gas Island Off Long Beach Coast Faces Fierce Opposition From New Jersey Group

By Michael H Samuels

Another offshore liquefied natural gas terminal pitched for the tri-state area is facing the same rough seas that sunk Broadwater.

New Jersey officials are mounting a challenge to the Atlantic Sea Island Group’s proposed Safe Harbor Island liquefied natural gas terminal to be built 13.5 miles off the Long Beach coast.

The group first said it wanted to build the LNG terminal two years ago. Since then, the Coast Guard deemed the application complete. Now, Safe Harbor must wait for a federal court judge to decide if New Jersey has a say in the project’s development, which would be 19 miles from Sea Bright, N.J.

Even if the court rules that New York alone has jurisdiction over Safe Harbor, there is no guarantee Gov. David Paterson, who scuttled Broadwater when he refused to grant the permits needed to build the LNG off the coast of Wading River, would approve the latest proposal.

But Howard Bovers, chairman of Atlantic Sea Island Group LLC, was hopeful New York’s response would be positive.

“The people of New York seem to think our project is a pretty good idea,” Bovers said. “I don’t know why New Jersey is taking an attitude against it.”

Cynthia Zipf, executive director of New Jersey’s Clean Ocean Action, retorted that the proposal is not credible and is an environmental hazard.

“We’ve dubbed it ‘Insanity Island,’” Zipf said. “We’ve done some extensive evaluations of energy needs in the region. We don’t need to go down this expensive, polluting, foreign fossil fuel path. It’s contrary to everything we should be doing.”

But Bovers said the plan is safe. He said Safe Harbor would build the U-shaped island between shipping lanes in 60 feet of water using 11 million yards of sand and gravel. More than 19,000, 31-ton blocks will be used as breakwater to absorb waves, protect the island and create a fish sanctuary.

There is no recreational fishing or activities in the area of the island and commercial fishing is limited, he said. The spot is about 4.5 miles from an existing LNG pipeline, Bovers said.

It would take four to five years to build the island, which would be able to handle 2 billion BTUs of gas per day when fully completed. The terminal has the potential to fulfill the gas needs of up to 30 million households, Bovers added.

On Long Island, environmentalists and government officials seem lukewarm to the project. It is still early in the permitting process, they say, adding that the project does have environmental and safety concerns.

Ed Dumas, spokesman for the Long Island Power Authority, which would purchase gas from Safe Harbor to supply Long Island, said the authority has yet to review Safe Harbor.

“At first blush, it looks more palatable,” Dumas said. “But that is not an endorsement. We are going to look at that project again. Does it guarantee an additional supply of natural gas to our region and is it compatible with the environment it is being placed in?”

Adrienne Esposito, executive director of Citizen’s Campaign for the Environment, said Safe Harbor’s benefits include that it is a stable structure and provides the largest amount of LNG storage. However, it is also the most intrusive of the three LNG proposals out there right now.

Blue Ocean Energy has pitched a Broadwater-like LNG off the coast of New Jersey. Blue Ocean is an Exxon-Liberty Natural Gas joint venture. Also, Excalibur Energy Inc., a joint venture between Canadian Superior and Global LNG Inc., are pushing a sub-sea pipeline off New Jersey’s coast.

Esposito said she would be surprised if more than one of the three proposals is approved.

She said one positive for Blue Ocean is that it’s a pipeline that lies on the ocean floor, connected to a buoy. When a tanker moors to the buoy, the pipeline electronically rises up to connect with the tanker to distribute the gas, she said.

When done, the pipeline retracts and the tanker leaves.

“There is no storage area,” Esposito said. “It solves in our mind all the other controversial issues. There is no ‘no go zone.” It does not need the Coast Guard there protecting something. All these things go away.”

But Bovers said Safe Harbor is more realistic because it uses proven technology and is far enough away to not harm anyone in the case of an attack or accident.

Originally published by Michael H. Samuels.

(c) 2008 Long Island Business News. Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning. All rights Reserved.