Plans for natural gas island scrapped

After years of community opposition, public hearings and protests, plans to develop a liquefied natural gas terminal 13 1/2 miles off the coast of Long Beach have been scrapped after the developer backed away from building the massive facility due to an uncertain economy and the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.

The developer, Manhattan-based Atlantic Sea Island Group LLC, announced plans to build a 60-acre Safe Harbor Energy deepwater port in 2006, claiming that it would produce 2 billion cubic feet of liquefied natural gas per day, reduce the cost of electricity, create hundreds of jobs and boost the local and state economies.

In 2007, ASIG submitted an application to build the terminal to the Coast Guard and the U.S. Maritime Administration, the federal agencies responsible for issuing a license. The project came under fire from local officials, residents and environmental groups, who dubbed it "Insanity Island" and said that it would negatively impact the environment, increase the region's dependence on foreign fuel and create the potential for an offshore catastrophe and terrorist attacks.

On July 23, the Maritime Administration formally acknowledged that ASIG had withdrawn its permit application, saying that the group was suspending the project due to "existing market conditions, the current 'climate' regarding the offshore development in the aftermath of the recent Gulf incident; and the prevailing uncertainty with respect to both the U.S. and global economy."

Local officials say the move is a win for Long Beach, and that the environmental, economic and safety risks outweighed any benefit the facility might have had on energy production. "I think it's the most important news to come out of Long Beach in a generation, mainly because we've protected our ocean coast for future generations," said Ray Ellmer, a commissioner of the city's Zoning Board of Appeals and co-chairman of an advisory committee created by City Manager Charles Theofan to monitor the project.

The City Council unanimously voted against the proposal in early 2009, after a federal hearing was held in Long Beach. Ellmer, along with City Councilwoman Mona Goodman and Theofan, have been calling on Gov. David Paterson to veto the project.

"We thwarted a homeland security risk, a public safety risk as well as an environmental and economic risk," Ellmer said.

He added that environmental factors loomed large. "The LNG would have been subject to nor'easters and hurricanes and released tons of toxic sediment, since it was to be built next to where we had tons of ocean dumping during the 1970s and '80s," he said.

An environmental impact statement on the project has never been released to the public, although organizations such as the Surfrider Foundation, a non-profit group dedicated to protecting the world's beaches and oceans, said the project would have decimated marine life off Long Beach.

"This is a great campaign victor for us," said Katie Lawrence of Surfrider's Central Long Island chapter. "... We've been working for over two years to get this application withdrawn. We thought it was going to be a long, drawn-out battle, especially in light of what's going on in the gulf."

For its part, ASIG maintains that LNG terminals, which convert liquefied natural gas to natural gas, are safe, and import fuel from around the world to help provide energy independence from the Middle East. Liquefied natural gas does not spill like oil, the company maintains, so it would not pollute land or water or produce a slick as oil does.

While the project had its share of supporters, environmental groups and many lawmakers were not among them. "Hopefully, this is the end of the industrialization of our ocean," said Claudia Borecky, co-chair of county Legislator Dave Denenberg's Taskforce Against LNG Island.

Borecky and others said they believe that strong opposition played a major role in ASIG's decision to suspend its efforts.

"I'm absolutely thrilled," Goodman said. "It was the hard work of a lot of people ... I think it would have had a tremendous impact on the recreational and tourism aspects of Long Beach, and I'm just so relieved that we don't have to immediately fight this battle anymore."

Many who have followed the ASIG saga say they believe that the BP spill not only contributed to the developer's decision to back away from the development, but focused renewed attention on the potential environmental impact of such an offshore project. "If Long Beach ever experienced what the gulf coast experienced, it's almost incomprehensible the environmental, economic and emotional damage this would have cost our barrier island," Ellmer said.

Ellmer and others said that the gulf spill prompted a more vocal response from lawmakers, and gained momentum after New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie voiced his opposition to ASIG's plan in April. "You now had the governor of New Jersey, who has veto power, voicing his opposition to this project ...," Ellmer said. "We needed the governor of New Jersey and New York to veto this, and I think this made lawmakers in New York take notice that they could no longer remain neutral or take no position on the project."

In April, Denenberg, a Democrat from Merrick who was an early opponent of the project, held a rally on the Long Beach boardwalk with fellow Legislator Denise Ford (R-Long Beach) and others, calling on the governor to veto the project. "I feel the project could unnecessarily encourage our dependence on foreign fossil fuel, and it is a potential environmental hazard," said State Assemblyman Harvey Weisenberg of Long Beach. "As the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico has made clear, these technologies are not fail safe."

Weisenberg said he believes that Paterson ultimately would have squelched it, as he did in 2008 with the Broadwater Energy LNG project proposed for the Long Island Sound.

Ellmer added that while the withdrawal of the application is good news, the proposal could come up again. In fact, ASIG emphasized that it may re-submit a permit application in the future, and details about Safe Harbor Energy remain posted on its website.

"When these energy companies feel the time is right, they re-submit these things," Ellmer said. "I really do believe that this showed that private citizens can neutralize the powerful energy lobbyists.”

Comments about this story? Arifilato@liherald.com or (516) 569-4000 ext. 213.