By SARI ZEIDLER
Local environmental groups are speaking out against Safe Harbor Energy, a 60.5-acre artificial island proposed by the Atlantic Sea Island Group Inc. for a site 13 miles south of Long Beach. There, liquefied natural gas -- natural gas cooled to minus-265 degrees Fahrenheit -- would be converted back to its original gaseous state and then piped to the mainland. The LNG would be delivered by ship from overseas.
The project, which Gary Lewi, a spokesman for ASIG, said would cost $1 billion, was the subject of a recent meeting of the North and South Merrick community civic associations. Nassau County Legislator Dave Denenberg, a Democrat from Merrick, and Claudia Borecky, president of the North Merrick group, raised environmental objections to the proposal. In a telephone interview, however, Lewi, a North Merrick native, contended that Safe Harbor would help Long Island meet its future energy needs responsibly.
Denenberg implored residents to join him in opposing the project, suggesting that it would be a potential terrorist target, increase dependence on foreign energy sources and create an eyesore on the horizon -- objections that Lewi refuted.
"We know there will be no coal or atomic power on Long Island," Lewi said, "and you begin to ask the question, if not those, then what?" He noted that Long Island rejected proposals to construct a nuclear power plant and an offshore wind farm in the past.
According to Lewi, ASIG would mine natural gas in the Caribbean, Russia and the Middle East and ship it as a liquid to Safe Harbor, where it would be stored until it was converted back to natural gas.
Opponents of the proposal suspect assertions that liquefied natural gas is safe. They also worry that the LNG island could harm the local environment. Clean Ocean Action, a New Jersey-based environmental coalition dedicated to protecting New Jersey and New York waterways, is among the groups that oppose Safe Harbor Energy. It says that liquefying the natural gas and transporting it from overseas would do more harm to the environment than good. In a recent report, Clean Ocean Action said that liquefying and shipping natural gas would produce 40 percent more greenhouse gases than using domestic natural-gas reserves.
On the other hand, in a report prepared for the Center for Liquefied Natural Gas, the independent consulting firm Pace Global Energy Services said that liquefying and transporting natural gas would indeed result in a greater output of greenhouse gases when compared with mining domestic resources. Pace noted, however, that bringing LNG from overseas would create fewer greenhouse gases than burning domestic coal.
Lewi added that LNG is safe to store, posing virtually no threat of explosion and little threat of attracting terrorists. If LNG were to escape from its containment vessel into the ocean, it would not burn on the water, Lewi said.
Justin Martinich of Long Beach is a member of the Surfrider Foundation, a nonprofit organization with chapters on Long Island and in Manhattan that objects to construction of the LNG island. Martinich said he is uncertain what risk of explosion the terminal might pose, but added that he did not want to find out. "Climate change for many is intangible; having an explosion 13 miles from your house is much more tangible," he said. "I think it's enough for any rational person to say, 'Hey, that alone is too much of a risk.'"
Borecky said she worries what the island might do to the view of the Atlantic from Long Island. She made an emotional appeal at the civic association meeting to preserve the view for future generations.
In response, Lewi said, "I'm actually sort of speechless that that's an argument. You wouldn't be able to see anything. That's why it's so far out to sea." At its highest point, he said, the LNG island would reach 65 feet. A computer-generated image provided by ASIG suggests that it would appear about the size of a thumb from the Long Beach boardwalk.
According to Lewi, the U.S. Coast Guard has approved the location for the proposed island. A Coast Guard representative, however, said he was unsure whether it had been OK'd and he would have to check. At press time, he had not provided that information.
Lewi said he could not detail the security measures that would be employed on the island. The Coast Guard, he said, would have to determine the necessary security requirements.
ASIG has said that the island would act as an anchor where coral reefs could grow. But Martinich said he worries about what the project could do to the local ecosystem. "I don't think we are all of a sudden going to see a spike in the fishing population because of this island," he said, arguing that ocean dredging necessary to build Safe Harbor could unearth potentially toxic debris buried for decades.
"The sense I get from ASIG is that they don't know who they're dealing with," Martinich added. "They don't know the passion and knowledge of Long Beachers and people who use the South Shore beaches of Long Island."
Joe Baker, president of the South Merrick Community Civic Association, said his group has not taken a stance on the project, and would not until members had learned more about it.
The deadline to register comments on Safe Harbor Energy with the U.S. Department of Transportation is March 11. Comments can also be made at www.regulations.gov.
An environmental impact statement is pending.
Comments about this story? Szeidler@liherald.com or (516) 569-4000 ext. 236.
