The Oil Drum: Local

To elaborate on the security (buffer zone) issue, yes, there will be a no-go zone for any vessel (except the LNG tankers) that will, in theory, be enforced by the Coast Guard. The impact of this loss is in the eye of the beholder.

Putting principle aside for now, the physical loss would be equivalent to a private enterprise being granted exclusive and permanent use of one acre of Central Park (more or less in the middle of the park). This acre would be inaccessible to the public. There would also be weekly deliveries (say, by truck) to this secure acre of parkland that would require temporarily closing (for 15 to 30 minutes) the access road to and within the park over which the truck passed, including any roads or paths that crossed it, while the delivery vehicle transited the public portion of the park.

You may find giving up an acre of Central Park to be acceptable, you may not. Perhaps it depends on the public good, if any, provided by the private enterprise controlling the parcel. Let's say the purpose is to exploit a known reserve of oil under Central Park. Still OK? Let's give it a much more benign purpose: to install PV array (on the ground) to operate as a power plant. Still OK? Perhaps equally benign: a wind turbine (ignoring the issues of height, visibility, noise and potential bird strikes) in the middle of the fenced-in, one-acre parcel. I suspect that there are still people who wouldn't have a problem losing access to the one-acre parcel for the wind turbine.

It's still apples and oranges (LNG vs. wind turbine). We can bring them a little closer together by imaging that there is the potential for the turbine to throw ice during the winter. It's a very small probability that it will throw ice, but if the ice does get thrown, it will land well outside the security zone, in the area where the public can go. Or, the turbine could fall over, or throw a blade. Someone could get hurt or killed. The probability of any of these events happening is very low, but not impossible. Would people still be in favor of alienating this one acre of Central Park? Maybe.

Let's say people are still in favor of it. Here's where the principle comes in. We've now agreed to alienate an acre of Central Park. What happens when the next oil prospector, or PV plant operator or wind turbine builder comes along to say they want to try the same thing on another acre? Can you say "no", now that you've already allowed one private enterprise to do it? Did we look ahead when we made the first agreement and wrote it so that it would be the only private use allowed within Central Park and no others could follow? Would such an agreement be defensible if challenged legally? Would the fees paid to NYC by the first private enterprise make it more likely that future proposals would be approved?

You'll have to tell me if this makes any sense. It's the best way I could think of to illustrate why many folks on Long Island are upset that a very bad precedent could be established.

As to the potential environmental impacts, there a number of websites one can go to understand the arguments, pro and con, including FERC to get the DEIS. The idea of the buffer zone becoming a marine sanctuary is one that has occurred to me, too, although not one of sufficient benefit to overwhelmingly trump any bad impacts, IMO. If I haven't already beaten my Central Park analogy to death, let me extend it one more time. Consider how beautiful the grass would grow in that one-acre patch of Central Park because no one would be allowed to walk on it.