|
|
Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 10:38:31 PM EDT
|
On Thursday, NY Governor David Patterson pronounced a project to build the Long Island Sound gas terminal, a LNG transfer barge "behind us" for the state. You may be saying why do I care, but the next option for LNG proponents is certain to stir up plenty of debate in our fair state...ExxonMobil and a private investor group each have proposed liquid natural gas terminals in the Atlantic, east of New Jersey and south of Long Island. Both projects are pending federal approvals. The EnviroPolitics Blog has more on the shift in attention...Despite the potential for appeals, the governor's decision takes the project off the  front burner and shifts attention to New Jersey where two other developers are proposing separate off-shore LNG projects.
The first, "Safe Harbor Energy," comes from Atlantic Sea Island Group (ASIG), a group of private investors who propose to build a man-made island for a LNG facility 13 miles off Long Beach, NY, and 19 miles off Sea Bright, NJ.
The second, "Blue Ocean Energy," is ExxonMobil's plan for a floating LNG terminal located 30 miles off Long Island and 20 miles east of New Jersey. (Video)
It will be interesting to see how the lessons of Broadwater are applied in New Jersey, both by the developers and project Here's my question, thanks to our lack of leadership from some of our Republican Congressmen, will opponents even have the ability to stop it? Dump Mike was on top of the story back in April of 2005...Among the shifts in power: The federal government would gain the power to approve giant liquefied natural gas terminals off the coasts, over state objections. [snip]
Rep. Mike Ferguson, a fellow Republican from nearby New Jersey, supports increasing federal authority, and says states would continue to hold some regulatory oversight of these facilities.
"Federal pre-emption for siting is necessary to ensure the highest safety and security for LNG terminals," Ferguson said. Some states rights advocate he is. But don't think Fergie was alone, he was joined by everyone's favorite Congressman Scott Garrett voting no to keep the amendment in the legislation. Congressmen Smith, Lobiondo and Frelinghuysen joined Democrats voting yes, which would have taken the amendment out of the bill and given states a say in the matter. Dump Mike stayed on the case as the issue progress further that September...Now Congressman Ferguson has, in a largely party line vote, voted against an amendment to the Coast Guard appropriations bill that would require the Coast Guard to "conduct a comprehensive security and safety review of liquefied natural gas facilities." So you can't review, oppose, check for security or safety. Hmmm... EnviroPolitics notes some who may want their voice heard...Opposition likely will be lead by Clean Ocean Action, a Jersey shore environmental organization which hasn't wasted any time is using its web site and a "fact sheet" to educate its members and supporters about the alleged shortcomings of both projects. Here's a little more about LNG (here, here, here and here) for you to help form an opinion, if you don't know where you already stand on the issue. It would seem there are a few issues at play. First you have the many benefits/possible draw backs of LNG. Second, the concept of constructing these LNG barges off the Jersey coast. Finally, you have our right as a state to have a say in this matter has been handed away to the Federal Government with the assistance of Fergie and Garrett. I'm all for the debate taking place, but that third point really annoys me. If you have an opinion or more information on the issue, please share with the group.
|
|
Discuss
:: (3
Comments)
|
|
