The New York Times came out against the proposed Broadwater liquefied natural gas barge in its editorial pages today, claiming the project takes a short-term approach in the face of long-term concerns such as “finally curbing the addiction to fossil fuels and preventing another industrial incursion into Long Island Sound.”
Long Island Business News also wrote an editorial on the issue last week, but while we didn’t come out against it, we do essentially put the plan on notice.
From the Times:
New York regulators and Gov. David Paterson may be the last hope for scuttling the project, although officials in Connecticut have promised federal lawsuits, too, if that is what it takes. The battle will certainly go on for a while. Anti-Broadwater activists have expressed serious doubts about whether the federal review of environmental impact was thorough enough. They have also raised credible doubts that the market will even support this huge commitment to new infrastructure.
Long Island Sound could probably survive the addition of a permanent industrial barge the length of four football fields, and fishing boats and pleasure boaters could probably learn to cope with gas tankers, and everyone could probably live with the remote possibility of a big gas explosion in the Sound. But it’s not worth the accumulation of these insults to the Sound and its stressed ecosystem. Natural gas is cleaner than oil or coal but still a globe-warming fossil fuel.
One crucial caveat remains: By steadfastly opposing this project over the gas industry’s insistence that the region needs it, Broadwater’s critics are committing themselves to bearing the cost of the cleaner, greener way. This means a serious commitment to energy conservation and serious investments in wind and solar power, and in retooling existing power plants for efficiency and cleanliness.
A year ago, Long Island Business News gave its conditional support to Broadwater, a liquefied natural gas terminal proposed by TransCanada and Shell Oil.
The conditions? Long Island would receive an economic windfall that included compensation to school districts in the Town of Riverhead, in whose waters the LNG terminal would float. And Broadwater would offer Long Island residents natural gas for below-market rates, thus lowering bills that are 25 percent above the national average.
To this day, however, there are no guarantees, no deals in place between local officials and the oil executives who want to plant an LNG terminal in the Long Island Sound.
Shell Oil’s president said earlier this month that they’re still negotiating with New York. He also said the grand savings to Long Islanders is said to be $300 per household annually, an unimpressive number that still puts us 18 percent above the national average.
The benefit to putting an LNG terminal in the middle of one of the region’s most precious resources has to be a heck of a lot more than that.
