Calling a Sound Proposal Unsafe; Opposition to natural gas platform stirs on the South Fork

A proposal to build a liquified natural gas offloading station in Long Island Sound, nine miles off Rocky Point, drew a heated response at East Hampton Studios in Wainscott on June 1 as 22 East End residents gathered for a two-hour discussion.

The "informative presentation" on the Broadwater proposal was organized by East Hampton members of Democracy for America, a political advocacy group.

"This is the first private taking of a public sound," said Maureen Dolan, a program coordinator for Citizens for the Environment. "Things are improving in Long Island Sound," she said, but "Broadwater is moving in the opposite direction."

Jon Schneider, communications director for Representative Tim Bishop, was among the other participants.

"We just felt that it's simply not the way to go," Mr. Schneider said, calling the 1,200-foot-long station, whose mooring would occupy 7,000 square feet, "a massive surface development on the Sound, the first of its kind, and one that revolves around somewhat unproven technology."

"The only reason they are considering putting the thing out in Long Island Sound is that they can't put the thing anywhere else," said Tom Friedman of East Hampton at the meeting. "It is beyond anyone's capability to deal with the kind of accident that could happen," he said.

Broadwater, a joint venture of Trans-Canada Corporation and Shell U.S. Gas and Power, proposed last November to build an L.N.G. depot in the Sound nine miles off Rocky Point and 11 miles off Connecticut.

The project's opponents cite environmental risks, the station's potential as a target for terrorists, and the inconvenience the project may pose to boaters because of an "exclusion zone" that is expected to reach a 500-yard radius. But the most vocalized issue has been the "industrialization of the Sound."

"The more we allow this to happen, the more we can say we can do anything," said Pamela Topham of Sag Harbor. Others voiced the concern that once the station is built, the door could be opened to more projects, and there would be little anyone could do to prevent them.

That fear stems from the proposed Energy Policy Act of 2005, which the House of Representatives has passed, but which still must be voted on by the Senate. Section 320 of the bill would give full authority to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to authorize the contruction of liquid natural gas stations, according to Mr. Schneider.

Whether or not the commission already has full authority, however, is a subject of much debate. Energy regulators in California have filed a lawsuit against the federal government over the inability of the state to participate in deciding where some of the terminals will go.

As a result of that suit, the wording of the bill is still being revised, according to Bryan Lee, a spokesman for the federal commission, who said this week that "The legislation would not change in any way the considerable authority that states have," and that "they have the authority to veto any L.N.G. proposal." The states can do so, he said, through the Coastal Zone Management Act, the Clean Water Act, and the Clean Air Act.

Pat Wood III, chairman of the federal commission, reiterated states' authority in a recent press release, stating that "Affirming FERC's Natural Gas Act authority will not diminish the important and considerable authorities that state and local governments bring to the L.N.G. import terminal authorization process."

John Hritcko Jr., senior vice president at Broadwater, agreed that the federal commission already has full authority in this matter and that the bill "restates that authority in stronger language."

But Mr. Hritcko also said that local political action, such as a resolution unanimously passed by Suffolk County legislators in May to oppose the Broadwater project, is little more than symbolic. "From purely regulatory and legal standing, it has no bearing," he said on Monday.

"This is a concerted effort from the oil and gas industry towards more lax regulations and towards superseding state and local rights," said Mr. Schneider at the meeting. "What's to stop anything from coming along when we have the federal government saying that it can come in and impose its version of energy policy on our community?"

Froydis Cameron, a Shell geologist who represented Broadwater at the meeting, said, "We want to hear from as many people as possible."

Eric Cohen of Sag Harbor said that energy lobbyists that represent companies such as Shell have been working to "negate public opinion," while reassuring communities that their voice counts. "You can't speak out of both sides of your mouth as an industry," he said.

"States should be able to have a role in determining whether or not one of these platforms goes in state waters," said Mr. Schneider.

The Broadwater Floating Storage and Regasification Unit would take liquid natural gas brought in on large tanker ships from foreign sources and pump it through a 25-mile-long underwater pipeline to an existing pipeline that runs underwater from Milford, Conn., through Northport to Hunts Point in the Bronx.

Liquid natural gas is natural gas that has been liquefied by cooling to approximately minus 256 degrees Fahrenheit. It occupies 1/600 the volume of the gas in its natural state, thus is far more economical to transport. It is not shipped under pressure.

The selection of the proposed site in Long Island Sound began in 2002 when the Broadwater concluded that North American supplies of natural gas would not meet future demand and that importation of the fuel would be the most effective option for the region, according to company documents.

The company then concluded, after considering "the density of activity and population around existing ports onshore, as well as potential environmental impacts and safety and technical requirements," that Long Island Sound, rather than an onshore site, was the best option.

"We do need more energy production. Honestly, we do," said Mr. Schneider, going on to say that there are other ways to tackle the region's growing demand for energy, including the the use of wind power.

"I guess where a lot of us are coming from is the point of view that why should we put something in that is so questionable and that we feel detracts from the overall quality of the Long Island Sound? Why should that be the so-called answer to our energy problem?"