The Oil Drum

Here's a quick summary of LNG issues and their relationship to NYS as I see them.

Broadwater

Broadwater is a floating LNG terminal that Shell is proposing to install 9 miles north of Wading River in LI Sound (LIS). This puts it in the middle of LIS but just within the NYS border that runs down the middle. Pre-application documents were filed with FERC in early 2005. Formal application was filed this year (FERC Docket #CP06-54). FERC is reviewing the EIS for the project, which has garnered significant opposition on Long Island and in CT.

The main organizer of the opposition is the Anti-Broadwater Coalition. Most local environmental and civic groups as well as most local and state reps have come out against the project. The project is supported by industry groups, specifically, hospital and construction-industry organizations and other business groups. The federal Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) give the NYS Department of State the say in whether the project is consistent with the coastal policies developed by NYSDOS for LIS. If NYSDOS says that the project is not consistent, Broadwater has the right to appeal to the Secretary of Commerce; otherwise, the project dies. The decision on consistency determination is expected later this year.

KeySpan Providence

KeySpan had applied to FERC (Docket #CP04-223) to convert an existing LNG storage tank in Providence to tank that could be supplied via a marine terminal. The existing tank stores pipeline NG that is trucked as LNG to locations that need supplemental NG. FERC denied approval to KeySpan late last year because KeySpan did not propose to upgrade the tank to be compliant with the current code. KeySpan argued that they didn't have to do the upgrade because they weren't altering the tank, just making the provision for taking deliveries from LNG tankers. I believe that KeySpan is pursuing legal action to get the FERC ruling overturned. This project also garnered significant local opposition. It's possible that KeySpan could prevail and force FERC to approve it. I'm not sure what implications, if any, viz. CZMA.

Weaver's Cove

Weaver's Cove was approved by FERC (Docket #CP04-36) late last year. This project is a new marine terminal proposed by Hess for Fall River, MA (which is less than 25 miles from Providence). Because this project is new, it was designed to meet current code (ignoring any argument as to whether the current code is adequate). What has stymied this project is some language written into a federal bill that prevented the demolition of an historic bridge under which LNG tankers would have to pass on their way to Fall River. When Weaver's Cove submitted their application, they based it on the use of larger tankers (and fewer tanker trips) because they anticipated the demolition of the bridge. Once the bridge was "protected", they had to revise their project to use smaller tankers, making more frequent trips. The opponents of Weaver's Cove claim that this change in scope invalidates the EIS and FERC's approval. They are seeking to have FERC start from scratch and review the revised appication.

There is no collective opposition attacking these three projects together (and LNG in general) as far as I can see. Partly due to the timing of each application, local opposition arose independently in response to each one. KeySpan and Fall River do have overlapping opposition because of their proximity. The Attorneys General of MA and CT have been active against both projects. The anti-Broadwater groups have been fighting their own battle. For some reason, they've chosen to ignore the projects in Providence and Fall River, while the opposition to those projects have implicitly argued that Broadwater, being in the middle of LIS and away from population centers, would be a better choice than the land-based proposals.

NYS LNG Moratorium

In 1973, a land-based LNG tank on Staten Island was undergoing some work. The tank had been emptied of LNG and welders were working inside. My understanding is that the styrene-based insulation caught fire and began to collapse on the workers. Other workers rushed in to save them but all were trapped. Approximately 40 workers died in the accident. There was some thought that LNG had seeped into the insulation and vaporized while the work was being performed. Other than that hypothesis, this tragedy was not a "classic" LNG disaster and did not directly involve the buring of LNG. Nonetheless, local legislation banning the siting of LNG facilities in NYS was passed in 1976.

The moratorium was to last only until NYSDEC wrote rules to address the siting of LNG facilities and was expected to take two years. DEC didn't want to write the rules back then and, jump ahead 30 years, DEC still doesn't want to write the rules (claiming that they don't have the expertise to deal with it). The moratorium lived on, having been renewed every so often as DEC avoided rule-writing. One of the main reasons it lasted so long is that the person responsible for the original moratorium, State Sen. Marchi from Staten Island, remains in office as one of the longest (the longest?) office holder. My understanding is that he will never allow LNG in NYC as long as he has a say in the matter.

The moratorium was not renewed last year, leaving NYS in limbo (a la Article X). DEC is making some effort to write the regulations. At the same time, there is a great interest on the part of utilities and transportation intestest (e.g., USDOE Clean Cities Campaign) to get LNG going in NYS. There are stranded gas wells in upstate NY that would be accessible if they could be converted to LNG and trucked. As an alternative to diesel fuel, LNG has six times the range of CNG for a given volume, so NYSDOT is apparently interested in LNG as a "clean" alternative to diesel fuel. In response, some utilities have tried to get LNG legislation passed in NYS.

As I understand it, many states have rely on NFPA 59A and 70 as the code for LNG facilities. Some states, I believe, have also adopted some of their own rules in addition to NFPA. Still, there is concern among the local environmental community that the current rules are not sufficiently protective, or have not been updated to reflect the "post 9/11" world. For this reason, many would like to see NYS write its own rules. The utilities would rather have NYS rely on NFPA.

These are the issues as I see them. I'm more familiar with Broadwater and NYS issues, hence, there are more links. I may have some of the details wrong, so I invite corrections and clarifications. I also suggest checking the blog Sphere to get more information on Broadwater and other evironmental issues around LIS.