EnviroPolitics Blog

A third bid for an LNG facility off the NJ coast

And now there are three. Three separate proposals, that is, to build facilities off the New Jersey coast for importation of foreign Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG).

The first, “Safe Harbor Energy,” was proposed in January, 2006 by Atlantic Sea Island Group, 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)

The latest project, billing itself as “Liberty Natural Gas,” was proposed on May 20 by Excalibur Energy (USA) Inc. , itself a 50/50 joint venture between Canadian Superior and Global LNG Inc., a Delaware company.

The project would involve natural gas sent in liquefied from from Trinidad and re-gasified aboard the transport vessels. The gas would be offloaded to buoys some 15 miles off Asbury Park, NJ and sent via 50 miles of gas pipeline, and eleven miles of onshore pipeline to a terminus in Linden, NJ for distribution throughout the northeast.

Subject to federal and New Jersey regulatory approval, the project could begin delivery of gas to help serve the region’s growing energy needs by late 2011.

Liberty Natural Gas developers are stressing that their project differs from the other two competing proposals in that it would not require the construction of large offshore transfer island or platform.

Liberty also notes that its transfer operation would not be visible from shore, a factor which contributed to at least some of the strident public opposition against Broadwater Energy’s LNG platform proposed for Long Island Sound.

The latter project was blocked on April 10 by New York Governor David Paterson following an uproar from environmentalists, fishermen and coastal residents in New York and neighboring Connecticut. (See: NY nixes LNG platform; focus shifts to NJ)

Canadian Superior’s Chief Executive Officer, Craig McKenzie, said, in a company press release that the project results from more than “two years of design development and several series of stakeholder interviews in the New Jersey and New York areas.”

“Its design is simple and it is basically a natural gas pipeline project with an offshore, anchored submerged natural gas-receiving turret, ” McKenzie said. “Impact on all components of the environment and marine life has been carefully considered in our design. Near-shore the pipeline will be directionally drilled so that no surface sediments are disturbed. Onshore the pipeline will be laid within an existing interstate pipeline corridor to Linden, New Jersey.”

If Excalibur’s project were approved, would one or both of its competitors still be required?

Not according to McKenzie, who noted that the project’s “design capacity is up to 2.4 billion cubic feet per day, which is sufficient to safely satisfy all the growing needs in the area such that multiple projects will not have to be undertaken.”

Clean Ocean Action, a New Jersey shore environmental organization that is already opposing the Mobil Exxon and Atlantic Sea Island Group projects (See: LNG platforms – A northeast update), apparently isn’t impressed by the differences offered in the Excalibur plan.

“There is nothing ‘liberating’ about industrializing our ocean, becoming more dependent on foreign fossils fuels, and increasing our energy costs,” said Cindy Zipf, COA Executive Director in a press release. “We must remain vigilant and stop all three of these monstrous projects – the ocean is no one’s guinea pig.”

Natural gas pipeline proposed for NJ coast (Associated Press)
New plan seen as Broadwater alternative (Newsday)
Liberty Natural Gas to Provide Northeast With New Supply of Clean Burning Energy (Excalibur Energy press release)

A third bid for an LNG facility off the NJ coast Read More »

Retired Jersey eco-warriors now public scholars

Two retired veterans of Trenton environmental wars weren’t always on the same side of the issues in their former professional roles but now find themselves as colleagues at Monmouth University.

The university’s Urban Coast Institute has selected, as its first Public Scholars in Residence, Dr. Jim Sinclair and Mr. Andrew Willner.

For years, Sinclair, an engineer, was the chief environmental lobbyist for the New Jersey Business and Industry Association, frequently presenting the business community’s position on environmental issues in testimony before the committees in the state Senate and Assembly.

Willner also made some appearances before legislative bodies during his 19 years as a national and regional advocate for coastal and marine resources as the New York/New Jersey Baykeeper.

According to the Institute, Dr. Sinclair’s efforts will focus on sustainable coastal development and business practices, regulatory policy, and private-public partnerships that support coastal and ocean conservation.

Willner will focus on assisting local urban coastal groups to garner community support for implementation of projects that support pragmatic sustainability and ecological democracy.

Both also will be available to participate in on-campus classes at the invitation of faculty, give public lectures and participate in University and public forums, develop policy papers, and stimulate and facilitate debate and dialogue on critical issues facing our coastal and ocean environment.

Retired Jersey eco-warriors now public scholars Read More »

Top environmental & political news: May 19-23

Every day, we select a few of the top environmental and political stories appearing in our newsletter, EnviroPolitics, and post them to our website for free public use.

Click the links below to view stories for New Jersey, Pennsylvania, New York–and beyond– that appeared during the past week.

May 19 2008
May 20 2008
May 21 2008
May 22 2008
May 23 2008

To receive free daily alerts when our Environmental & Political News page is updated, send a blank email to: eptopdailynews@aweber.com

Try EnviroPolitics Free for an entire month !

Top environmental & political news: May 19-23 Read More »

Nuclear power revival – real or just talk?

The nation’s quiescent nuclear power industry should adopt the polar bear as its mascot.

Nothing has done more to boost the chances of a nuclear plant revival in the U.S. than the ubiquitous photos of helpless polar bears struggling to maintain balance on ever-shrinking floes as global warming eats away at their once boundless icy real estate.

The companies that design and build nuclear reactors and the energy utilities that would buy and operate them have seized on global-warming fears to offer nuclear power as the non-carbon-polluting alternative to fossil fuel generation.

And…shhhh (they whisper), as an added bonus, we won’t have to spend billions invading other countries (OK, maybe Canada) to keep the raw material for that energy coming.

Putting aside the still pesky problem of what to do with spent uranium rods and some lingering concerns about widespread human death and environmental destruction should the midnight to eight shift fall asleep while the plants’ innards burp, the industry could have a winner on their hands.

Some pluses:

* Safety Since the Three-Mile Island scare near Harrisburg in 1979 that sent the industry into a polar bear freeze, nuclear power plants have demonstrated a near flawless safety record here and internationally.

* Others are doing it France gets 77 percent of its electricity from nuclear reactors. Japan gets 30 percent. Residents of the Garden State may be surprised to learn that New Jersey relies on home-grown nuclear power for 40 percent of its energy needs.

* The competition are environmental bad boys To keep pace with growing energy demand, the nation needs to build more power plants. Conventional energy plants are powered either by coal or natural gas–both contributors to greenhouse gases. Coal has a special place in the pantheon of environmental villains. Read: The dark side of energy independence or watch the current Comcast On Demand viewing of Burning the Future: Coal in America

* The competition gets costlier The rising cost of both coal and natural gas is eroding their historic standing as the nation’s preferred sources of ample and cheap power fuel.

So, there really is something to all this talk in the media about a nuclear revival, right?

The industry is doing its best to convince you and political leaders (who control the levers of federal subsidies and state environmental controls) that this is the case.

It has cranked up a public relations effort in Washington and state capitols and has had great success in getting ink and electrons for its side of the energy debate.

[In New Jersey, the nuclear lobby got to practice is arguments over the past year in supporting a 20-year renewal of the federal operating license for the Oyster Creek nuclear plant–the nation’s oldest–in Forked River, NJ. See: NJ nuke’s relicensing looks like a done deal and More on New Jersey nuclear advocacy ]

There also are signs of interest in building new plants from more than a few utilities.

In New Jersey energy giant PSEG has made no secret of the fact that it is exploring the possibility of adding a new reactor in South Jersey, where it already has three nuclear stations.

And just this past week in Pennsylvania, PPL announced that it has informed the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission that it might apply for a license for a third reactor at the Susquehanna nuclear power plant about 75 miles northwest of the Lehigh Valley.

But most of the announcements about energy company interest in testing the nuclear waters are couched in lots of “maybes.”

That’s due to a host of hard-to-quantify variables, including questions about: projected construction costs, financial market support, government financing, tax breaks or outright subsidies (remember there are new upstarts in solar and wind vying for their slice of the federal financial pie), hints of the softening of opposition among some national environmental organizations, but offsetting prospects for continuing opposition from regional enviro-groups and other NIBYites.

One of the big challenges receiving recent media attention is the soaring construction price tag.

The Wall Street Journal reported on May 12 that the industry has received new sticker-shock projections of between $5 billion to $12 billion per plant–double to quadruple earlier rough estimates.

“The latest projections follow months of tough negotiations between utility companies and key suppliers, and suggest efforts to control costs are proving elusive. Estimates released in recent weeks by experienced nuclear operators – NRG Energy Inc., Progress Energy Inc., Exelon Corp., Southern Co. and FPL Group Inc. – “have blown by our highest estimate” of costs computed just eight months ago, said Jim Hempstead, a senior credit officer at Moody’s Investors Service credit-rating agency in New York.” The Journal ended its piece by noting that PSEG’s CEO Ralph Izzo concedes that, due to rising construction costs, his company may not be big enough alone to build a nuclear plant, even though it is a nuclear operator. That could mean simply that joint ventures may be the wave of the future. Or it could be a signal to government that it needs to pony up even more than before. In any case, the nuclear ‘revival’ may have to be postponed for a bit…at least until the polar bears are up to their necks in water.

MORE:A full copy of the Wall Street Journal’s (paid-subscription) story is available at the Alliance for Nuclear Responsibility website here. In Chicago Boyz : Nuclear Power Cost Over-runs In Science Daily: Questioning Nuclear Power’s Ability To Forestall Global Warming In Politico: Environmentalists see fission on nuclear power In Atlanta Journal-Constitution: Southern’s Ala. nuclear reactors raise new doubts

Nuclear power revival – real or just talk? Read More »

New chemical plant rules criticized in NJ

New chemical plant safety rules in the process of being adopted by the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) are already under fire from an environmental organization that is drawing attention to the chemical industry’s praise for the new regulations.

In a press release, Bill Wolfe, state director of Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER) says:

“ ‘Inherently safer technologies’ was supposed to be the most effective solution for managing the safety, security, and health risk associated with chemical plants, but what New Jersey produced is only a faint echo of what should have been enacted. This is like the IRS requiring people to fill out tax forms but making actual payment of taxes voluntary.”

Wolfe, a former NJDEP employee and now a critic of the agency, notes that the new rules were: “warmly praised by the chemical industry and condemned by unions representing plant workers in formal comments.”

Click here for PEER’s entire news release

Click here for a copy of the new rules and the NJDEP’s response to public comments submitted during the rule review process.

New chemical plant rules criticized in NJ Read More »

A big NJ solar project via a PA utility

Schering-Plough Corporation, the New Jersey-based pharmaceutical manufacturer, is about to make solar history, but not with the help of the state’s largest energy company.

Schering announced today that it will install the nation’s largest array of solar roof panels. The solar system will be built on eight rooftops on buildings throughout the company’s campus in Summit , NJ.

The company’s energy partner in the venture, however, is not Public Service Electric and Gas (PSEG), New Jersey’s largest energy company. PSEG has has been making headlines with a variety of recent clean-energy initiatives in New Jersey, from commercial and residential loans to customers interested in solar installations to a proposal for an off-shore wind farm and public ruminations over possibly building the state’s first new nuclear power plant in decades.

Schering-Plough instead has selected PPL, a Pennsylvania-based energy company, to design, construct and operate the 1.7-megawatt solar system.

When complete, the project will give PPL ownership or control over solar projects with a total installed capacity of about 10 megawatts.

In a news release today announcing the project, PPL says it “continues to explore partnership opportunities to develop additional solar energy projects in New Jersey and throughout the 13-state power market managed by PJM Interconnection.”

Am I imagining it, or does that quote not contain a hint of interstate, competitive glee?

A big NJ solar project via a PA utility Read More »