By ARIELLA MONTI
The Atlantic Sea Island Group Inc. plans to build a $2 billion, 116-acre island to serve as a port for the mass conversion of the liquefied gas, known as LNG, to natural gas. In August 2007, ASIG submitted an application to the U.S. Coast Guard and the Maritime Administration, which headed last week’s session. According to Mark Prescott, chief of the Deepwater Port Standards Division for the Coast Guard, after the agencies deem ASIG’s application complete, they will prepare an Environmental Impact Statement that will assess the project’s effects on the surrounding area.
“This is the information that we seek to make sure that we draft an EIS that covers all the concerns,” Prescott said. “After it gets published and people get an opportunity to look at it, we’ll hold another public meeting to get feedback on that document. We’ll take that feedback and prepare a final document, after which there is a public hearing.”
Those voicing opposition to the plan seemed most concerned that it would increase dependence on foreign fuel, create the potential for a catastrophic event and negatively impact both the marine and coastal environment.
According to Glenn Almquist, ASIG’s environmental coordinator, the U.S. already receives gas from Canada and South America. And Raymond Niles, who researched the energy industry as a stock analyst for 13 years and said he has no ties to ASIG or to any other group interested in the project, argued that the terminal would not add to the country’s dependence on foreign fuel. “It would displace gas that can be used somewhere else in the country,” he said.
Niles added that while there may be carbon dioxide created in the cooling and reheating process, the chemical properties of LNG are the same as natural gas, only in a liquid form.
“It’s the same natural gas that you use in your house,” echoed Almquist.
Addressing the island’s potential effect on marine life, Almquist said that since it would have a secure area around it, the structure would act as a marine sanctuary. “The island will function like a reef,” he said.
As for safety, Niles said that if there were a leak at the facility or in the pipeline, the gas would dissipate into the atmosphere long before it would come anywhere near shore. “Natural gas has to be somewhat concentrated in order to be flammable,” he said.
Niles noted that there is an LNG terminal in Boston Harbor that has been in use for years and that, in his opinion, LNG technology is safer than the oil and petroleum refineries around the U.S. — including New Jersey.
Assemblyman Harvey Weisenberg (D-Long Beach) noted the importance of an informed public before opening the floor to residents and activists, and county Legislators Dave Denenberg (D-Merrick) and Jeff Toback (D-Oceanside) voiced their opposition to the project, as they had a day earlier, at a press conference at the legislative building in Mineola. There they were joined by activists from local environmental groups, including Phil Healy of the Biltmore Shores Civic Association and Save Jones Beach, Robert Sabella of the Freeport Tuna Club and Richard Schary, a Long Island environmentalist. The group held a second press conference at Long Beach Surf Shop an hour before the Jan. 29 public session.
“Our ocean is probably our most precious open space,” Denenberg said. “It’s what makes Long Island and the eastern coast the signature coast that it is for fishing, recreation and commerce.” He described LNG as a “dirty” foreign fuel from the Middle East and Russia that will cost twice as much as natural gas.
According to the California Energy Commission, the majority of the world’s LNG comes from Australia, Algeria, Brunei, Indonesia, Libya, Malaysia, Nigeria, Oman, Qatar and Trinidad and Tobago.
Opponents of ASIG’s proposed project also argue that Long Island will not receive the benefit of an added supply of natural gas or reduced costs from having a terminal off its coast. In response, Almquist said, “The natural gas we use comes from the Gulf Coast, so it’s coming by pipeline 1,500 miles, so we’re at the end of the pipeline. So if there’s any disruption to that pipeline, it impacts the price.”
Almquist added that a storage facility on the terminal island would improve the reliability of the gas supply here, which can be impacted by any unforeseen disruptions ranging from strong storms to increased use in other areas.
“I was well informed, but I still have a lot of questions,” said nine-year Long Beach resident Cody Onufrock, who attended the public session. “There’s more research that I need to do, but everyone was pretty forthcoming with information.”
Onufrock said that he is worried that the project will create more infrastructure that depends on the burning of fossil fuel. “I understand that energy companies need to invest in energy, but I think they should be investing in other kinds of energy,” he said, adding that he plans to do more research and to submit a letter for the record.
Weisenberg said that while he is not in favor of the project, he does not know enough about it to be against it. “Anything that would be negative to our beach, I would be adamantly opposed to,” he said. “I’m not really thrilled with the idea, but as an educator, I feel that people should have access to information.”
Comments about this story? JKellard@liherald.com or (516) 569-4000 ext. 213.
