TO:	Huntington Township Chamber of Commerce
FROM:	Government Relations Committee
DATE:	February 12, 2008
RE:	Proposed Broadwater LNG Terminal

This decision moves the proposed project one step closer to winning a Federal permit.  However, Broadwater must also secure state permits, and Governor Elliot Spitzer, who has not taken a public position on Broadwater, must issue a decision by, today, February 12, 2008.  According to Suffolk County Executive Steve Levy, “[Governor Spitzer is] playing it very close to the vest” on what course of action he may pursue.

Therefore, with a decision on the issuance of State and Federal permits imminent, this Government Relations Committee wishes to outline the various issues and positions (pro and con) involved, for consideration by Huntington Chamber members.


PRO BROADWATER POSITION

• Energy needs are expected to grow 37% statewide by 2021; this project is the only feasible means to meet this cost increase in a safe cost-effective manner.
• The average household will save an estimated $200 per year on energy costs, and the region an approximate $680,000,000 per year.
• LNG is a clean fuel, and will result in a net positive impact to the environment.
• By locating in the Long Island (“LI”) Sound, Broadwater can use the existing Iroquois natural gas pipeline and avoid on-shore development, and minimizing environmental impacts.
• The project will provide an annual economic benefit of $39.5 million, and a net tax benefit of $25.5 million.  
• Marine transport of LNG has a strong safety and security record.
• Locating the proposed Broadwater LNG terminal off-shore 9 miles from LI and 10 miles from Connecticut provides the public with a significant safety buffer.
• Risks from accidental liquefied natural gas spills and risks from intentional events (such as terrorist attacks) are small.
• The LNG carriers will have a minimal effect on safety, security, and traffic patterns in LI Sound, and the terminal itself will lie outside the major traffic lanes.
• The Broadwater LNG terminal will not be an attractive terrorist target, it being located far off-shore and with a small crew.
• Discharge of wastewater into the LI Sound will meet Federal and State discharge standards.
• Air emissions will meet the local ambient air quality standards.  

ANTI-BROADWATER POSITION

• This is the first time a floating storage and re-gasification unit of this size is being constructed (drawing as much as 8 billion feet of LNG), and the first time one is being permanently anchored off-shore. 
• There is inadequate information available as to safety hazards and their impacts, and no safety history for a terminal of this kind.  One disaster could cost billions.
• In a severe accident, a flammable vapor cloud could travel up to 4.7 miles from the Broadwater LNG terminal or 4.3 miles from incoming tankers. 
• The US Coastguard lacks the equipment and personnel resources required to implement necessary risk management measures.
• The Broadwater LNG terminal and LNG tankers will be potential terrorist targets; a terrorist event would cripple our power supply.
• The cost for security will be an estimated $10,400,000 per year, with FERC estimating that State and local governments will pay for 47% of this cost.
• The marginal reward offered is far outweighed by the risk of disaster.
• A strong historical safety record may not be a sound indicator of future safety.
• Only about 15-20% of the gas traveling through the Broadwater LNG terminal will be earmarked for LI, and LI will capture less than one-fifth of the expected $14.8 billion energy savings over the next ten years.
• No jobs are guaranteed to be created for Long Islanders.
• The Broadwater estimated average household savings would, if ever, only be realized after a matter of years, and cannot be guaranteed.
• No tax benefits will be realized by Suffolk County, as the facility will be in the LI Sound.
• The Broadwater estimated savings is premised upon the market price for natural gas dropping due to the availability of additional LNG; however, this argument fails to recognize that the market price for LNG is not set at a local level, and, consequently, LI having more LNG available will not necessarily result in lower LNG prices.
• A greater demand for LNG, based on increased usage, may result in increased LNG prices.
• This merely offers an additional single source of fuel, and will not add to fuel generation.
• With an estimated 22-25 miles of piping to be placed on the floor of the LI Sound, significant and negative environmental impacts may result.
• Other proposed projects might, if implemented, properly address our growing energy needs. 
• The huge Broadwater LNG terminal (comprising a 13,000 sq. ft. base / approximately the size of 4 football fields) will be granted a permanent “No Public Access Zone”, with an additional moving “No Access Zone” around LNG tankers.  These exclusion zones will be 2 miles in front and 1 mile behind and 750 yards on either side of the terminal, and be the first time in LI’s history a section of the LI Sound will be given over to a private corporation. 
• The Broadwater LNG terminal will severely impact a busy transit section of the LI Sound, and will disturb both the race and long established commercial traffic routes.
• 14,000 sq. ft. of lobster grounds will be permanently damaged, as will prime lobster grounds designated as “Essential Fish Habitat.”
• Surrounding LI Sound waters may warm an average 3.6 degrees, which could dramatically change the LI Sound’s eco system.