Gas Terminal Met With Derision
By Bill Cummings, Connecticut Post, Bridgeport
Jan. 10–NEW LONDON — The proposed liquefied natural gas terminal in Long Island Sound represents a recreational and environmental disaster, opponents of the project told federal regulators Tuesday.
“Broadwater is not welcome,” said William Cornish, a member of the New London City Council, during a public hearing before the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. He was referencing Broadwater Energy LLC, a joint venture between Shell Oil and the TransCanada Corp. that is proposing the terminal.
“It is madness to put our Sound, not Broadwater’s Sound, at environmental risk,” he said.
Cornish’s comments were typical of the 300 or so people who attended FERC’s first hearing on a proposed environmental impact statement on the project.
On the other side, Broadwater officials and a handful of supporters said the project would save Connecticut money, and represents a crucial step toward meeting the region’s future energy needs. Broadwater promised $300 in average annual savings for consumers.
“I don’t think there is any doubt that we need it,” former New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani told reporters, referring to the additional gas supply. Broadwater hired Giuliani as a security consultant.
“We also need it from the point of view of national security,” Giuliani said, saying most of the gas that would be transported to the terminal and distributed through pipelines comes from places other than the Middle East.
FERC’s draft environmental impact statement sets 79 conditions under which the proposed terminal, to be built in New York waters about 10 miles from Milford, would not adversely harm the environment.
Anchored to the bottom of the Sound, the Broadwater terminal would rise seven stories above the water, measure 200 feet wide and four football fields long. The platform would receive two to three shipments of liquefied natural gas per-week.
As the transport ships ply the Sound, they would be surrounded by a “no-go” zone stretching 2 miles in front of the tankers and 1 mile behind. No boats would be allowed within that zone, or a similar zone around the gas platform.
Gas would be off loaded and sent to New York and Connecticut through pipelines.
Opponents argued the project would disrupt recreational use of the Sound, represent a potential environmental nightmare and be an unwanted industrial use of the waterway.
“I have spoken out strongly against the project because it impacts the environment and the continued enjoyment of Long Island Sound,” said Gov. M. Jodi Rell in a letter read on her behalf.
“Connecticut has little to gain if this project moves forward. The Sound is legally our property. Your agency appears prepared to authorize a massive industrial facility, unprecedented in the world. Forcing Connecticut to accept these types of security zones is a taking of our property. Broadwater is the equivalent of a factory in the middle of a national park,” Rell said.
State Sen. Andrea Stillman, co-chairwoman of a state task force studying the proposal, said the draft environmental assessment is inadequate and flawed, and suggested the recent die-off of lobsters and oysters could worsen if the terminal is built.
“The Sound is a significantly stressed body of water and the accumulative impacts could contribute to more damage. I encourage you to reject this project,” Stillman said to applause.
State Rep. Besty Ritter, whose district includes Montville, said in the absence of a regional energy plan, the Broadwater venture is inappropriate. “This is a major driver of our concerns and inability to understand why this makes sense for Connecticut.”
Rosemary Driscol, a New London resident, said millions of dollars has been spent to restore the Sound. “How would this monstrosity impact the recreational use of the Sound — Is this really needed?” she asked the FERC members holding the hearing.
“As someone who has fished and enjoyed the Sound for six decades, I view this project as complete folly. It’s an insult to Connecticut residents,” added Richard Blair, an Old Lyme resident.
But not everyone who spoke at the hearing was opposed to Broadwater.
Bob Bayusik, a Teamster, said rising electric rates makes projects like Broadwater necessary.
“There is no question we need to control energy costs. These are goals we can all reach. The benefits of the Broadwater project are economic and are movement in a positive direction. The opposition offers no solution. Broadwater is 11 miles from the nearest community. It is the size of a large cruise ship moored in the vast waters of Long Island Sound,” Bayusik said.
Three more hearings are scheduled before FERC, two in New York state and one in Branford, which is set for Jan. 16 at 7 p.m. at Branford High School.
—–
Copyright (c) 2007, Connecticut Post, Bridgeport
Distributed by McClatchy-Tribune Business News.
For reprints, email tmsreprints@permissionsgroup.com, call 800-374-7985 or 847-635-6550, send a fax to 847-635-6968, or write to The Permissions Group Inc., 1247 Milwaukee Ave., Suite 303, Glenview, IL 60025, USA.
NYSE:TRP,