FYI Proposed Liquid Natural Gas facility off our coast a threat to fisherman?

[Fishfish]

FYI, Proposed Liquid Natural Gas facility off our coast a threat to fisherman?

Possible detrimental impact to our commercial and recreational fishing grounds off NJ and NY, with the proposed construction of a Liquid Natural Gas facility off our coasts.


Source: Clean Ocean Action and the Sierra Club
Keep Us Free from LNG! Say NO to Port Ambrose!

The ocean needs your help! Stand in opposition to LNG Facility Port Ambrose on Thursday January 8th at a public hearing in the Eatontown Sheraton!

http://tinyurl.com/LNGfactsheet

[Striperswiper]

I don't know who wrote this or how they got their information.

The following statement is an unsupported assumption and the rest of the article is based on this assumption.

"Port Ambrose is currently proposed as a facility to “import” natural gas from foreign sources. However, clearly there is no need; the United States has an abundance of natural gas. The real plan is that Liberty Natural Gas will flip this facility into an EXPORT facility to ship US domestic natural gas to Europe or to the highest bidder."

The question is ...how does whoever wrote this know what the "real plan" is?

Just seems like a scare tactic and hype.

There are gasoline, oil, natural gas and electric lines all over NJ and NY already. We use a lot of power.

If someone has any real hard facts and not assumptions I would like to read them.

My mind is not made up either way just want facts without the hype.

Thanks

Capt Brian

[Joey Dah Fish]

Either way more structure to fish :D count me in

[NoLimit]

We have refineries all over the place. Its never been a problem and there's good paying jobs. Dont know why so many people want to shut down more companies. Thing used to be nice when we had lots of good companies like when Ford and GM still had plants in North Jersey.

[HDMarc]

Either way more structure to fish :D count me in

It's all about you Joey, now isn't it:D!

[1captainron]

I'd worry more about NOAA taking away all your fishing before I sweat some proposed Gas line....

Cracks me up.....The most natural rock bottom on the Coast is being covered up every day with muck, habitat being destroyed that can never be replaced and we worry about a freaking pipe line. Outta sight outta mind I guess.

[Last Lady Charters]

Not going to hurt fishing---I'm with Capt Ron---worry more about the unjust regulations---more jobs is a good thing. I bet you're against the pipeline also.

[bulletbob]

Er umm.. Ask the fishermen on the Gulf coast if they want all those nasty polluting oil rigs taken down so that we can "clean up" our environment..
It would be the END for much of the Gulf charter boat industry.
Infrastucture on the sea bed ADDS life, lots of it.. Yes we need to be careful, and it needs to be built properly, but stuff on the sea floor always adds life.. Its a proven fact.. Life doesn't "move" from spot A to spot B, leaving spot A devoid of life..It provides more habitat, and more fishing opportunities... We NEED infrastructure. bob

[Capt. Debbie]

Another tree hugger article based upon clairvoyant mind reading, factually incorrect and self-serving speculation. What a crock of sh*t. Quotes like "there is no way to determine who is behind the company" ewh.. MUST BE BIG BUSINESS??? Or dreaded Hydrofracking in NYS - which is ALREADY ILLEGAL under NYS law. Duh! The author is a selective liar to attract the gullible! How dare they displace a wind farm that is rediculously too far offshore.

As everyone points out: more structure and this is a piss in the ocean compared to the rest of the problems. It's like being pissed off they will add another rock pile aid to navigation.

Remember Ambrose Tower? We died every day that was there- right? NOT!!! Or how Long Branch fishing pier despoiled the beach? Eco Terrorist propaganda

If done right like with land developers the pipeline owners must add something to the betterment of the environment in exchange.

HELLO... Everything new is NOT bad.



Either way more structure to fish :D count me in

[njdiver]

Page 2-18 Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Port Ambrose Project Deepwater Port Application

“2.1.15 Maritime, Safety, and Related Matters

Limited access areas including Safety Zones, No Anchoring Areas (NAAs), and Areas to be Avoided (ATBA) are established with varying degrees of vessel restrictions and notification requirements.

Pursuant to the regulations of the Deepwater Port Act of 1974 (DWPA), the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) is authorized to establish temporary and mandatory Safety Zones around deepwater ports whether or not a vessel is present. As proposed by Liberty, the Safety Zone radius would be 1,640 feet (500 meters) from the center of each STL Buoy, when no LNGRV is present, encompassing a total combined area for Safety Zones for both STL Buoys of approximately 388 acres or 0.6 square mile (Figure 2.1-12). When an LNG carrier is present, the Safety Zone would extend 1,640 feet (500 meters) off the stern of the 919-foot (280-meter) vessel as it weathervanes on the STL Buoy effectively creating an approximately 2,560-foot (780-meter) radius Safety Zone from the STL Buoy.

In addition to the Safety Zone, a NAA and an ATBA would be established at the request of the USCG to the IMO. As proposed by Liberty, the NAA and ATBA would be the same size with a radius of 3,281 feet (1,000 meters) from the center of each STL Buoy. This would be approximately 1,552 acres or 2.4 square miles around each STL Buoy (Figure 2.1-12).

LNG vessel traffic would be coordinated by Liberty personnel (Figure 2.1-13). The actual size of the ATBA that would be requested of the IMO would be determined through the advice and consent of the USCG. Past practices has been that ATBAs have a radius of at least 820 feet (250 meters) longer than that of the NAA for appropriate stand-off, which would occupy an area of 1, 213 acres around each STL Buoy. The ATBA would appear on subsequent editions of the local and regional nautical charts for both STL Buoys. The ATBA is meant to discourage vessel traffic and is recommendatory. “

Section 2:

http://www.regulations.gov/contentStreamer?objectId=090000648195e4d5&disposition=attachment&contentType=pdf


Page 3-61 of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Port Ambrose Project Deepwater Port Application:

“The Deepwater Port Act require the establishment of a zone of appropriate size around and including any deepwater port for the purpose of navigational safety. In such zone, no installations, structures, or uses are permitted that would be incompatible with the operation of a deepwater port.”

See page 3-62 for map showing location of turrets in relation to the Long Island-New York City Offshore Wind Project proposed area.

http://www.regulations.gov/contentStreamer?objectId=090000648195e954&disposition=attachment&contentType=pdf


All Documents:

http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=USCG-2013-0363-1076

[Joey Dah Fish]

I'm not sure how the rest of feel about this but here is a thought. I firmly believe that based on the amount of regulations we have in this country we are the safest and most pro environmental country in the world when it comes to harvest our natural resources. So I pose this question. Would you prefer a more carefully regulated project that provides more energy independence and more control over the prices and supply of energy ( clean energy NG) the provides our country jobs and national security here or in a less safe place? I would really appreciate everyone thoughts. Whether you agree or disagree please respect everyone's opinion.

[Fishfish]

Not going to hurt fishing---I'm with Capt Ron---worry more about the unjust regulations---more jobs is a good thing. I bet you're against the pipeline also.

"I bet you're against the pipeline also."..... Nice Capt! Is that comment directed to me? I only posted this thread as an FYI and only as information for NJFish members considerations and opinion. I do not have an opinion for or against a LNG pipeline. I do have concerns about its location and "no boat zone" restrictions surrounding such a facility as posted by NJdiver. Thank you! Restrictions just like protected spawning zones and.....do you remember the proposed fishing restrictions in the Hudson Canyon years ago? You see, that is what this thread was supposed to accomplish, to inform and bring forward information. Instead of an intelligent reply, you Capt, choose to make this ignorant comment. And not that I should even gratify you with an answer, but I am in favor of the Keystone Pipeline, if that is the pipeline you refer to.

[the1jonc]

The Gulf fisherman love all of the rigs down there. They provide habitat and structure in an otherwise flat and featureless bottom.

Venice, LA is on my bucket list

[CCMPmonmouth]

Why Clean Ocean Action has been fighting cleaner energy is beyond me. LNG burns cleaner and and spills cleaner than Black oil. They are also against offshore windmills and oceanographic surveys. Good job on ocean dumping, but perhaps they have lost their usefullness. Just once, I would like a successful grass root organization go away after they accomplish there mission. They always seem to turn into money canvassers and lobbyist.

[njdiver]

The Gulf fisherman love all of the rigs down there. They provide habitat and structure in an otherwise flat and featureless bottom.

Page 2-12 Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Port Ambrose Project Deepwater Port Application

Figure 2 – 1 – 8. Flexible Riser System

This shows what will be in place on the sand. The two previous pages give a closer look at the Bouy Components and Mooring System. All other construction will be buried.

http://www.regulations.gov/contentStreamer?objectId=090000648195e4d5&disposition=attachment&contentType=pdf

[njdiver]

Safe Harbor Energy (Atlantic Sea Island Group LLC)

Federal Docket for Safe Harbor Energy (Docket Number: USCG-2007-28535)

On September 16, 2006, the Atlantic Sea Island Group LLC (ASIG) filed an application with the Maritime Administration and the U.S. Coast Guard for a license under the Deepwater Port Act, to construct, own and operate a Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) receiving, storage and regasification deepwater port facility, known as Safe Harbor Energy. The proposed Safe Harbor Energy deepwater port would consist of a 60.5 acre manmade island to be located 13.5 miles south of the City of Long Beach, New York, and 19 miles east of Highlands, New Jersey.

On June 29, 2010, ASIG advised the Maritime Administration and U.S. Coast Guard of their intention to cancel work on the Safe Harbor Energy project for an indefinite period of time. By letter dated July 23, 2010, the Maritime Administration and U.S. Coast Guard acknowledged withdrawal of ASIG's Safe Harbor Energy deepwater port license application and thereafter, terminated all Federal processing activities. To date, the project remains closed with the Maritime Administration.


Liberty Natural Gas (Canadian Superior)

Federal Docket for Liberty Natural Gas (Docket Number: USCG-2010-0993)

Liberty Natural Gas filed an application on September 28, 2010, to own, construct, and operate a liquefied natural gas deepwater port, located approximately 16.2 miles off the coast of New Jersey near Asbury Park and connected via offshore pipeline to a 9.2 mile onshore pipeline. However, the Governor of New Jersey issued a letter disapproving the Liberty Natural Gas application on February 8, 2011. Liberty Natural Gas submitted an amended, deepwater port application on November 29, 2011,

On March 30, 2012, Liberty Natural Gas withdrew its deepwater port license application. Accordingly, The Maritime Administration in a letter dated April 25, 2012, accepted Liberty’s withdrawal and terminated the application and all related processing activities. To date, the project remains closed with the Maritime Administration.

http://www.marad.dot.gov/ports_landing_page/deepwater_port_licensing/dwp_cancelled_applications/dwp_cancelled_applications.htm


Neptune LNG (Suez LNG N.A.)

Federal Docket for Neptune LNG (Docket Number: USCG-2005-22611)

On February 15, 2005, Neptune LNG LLC filed an application for construction and operation of an LNG facility to be located in Massachusetts Bay, 10 miles south of Gloucester and 22 miles, Northeast of Boston. On January 31, 2007, the Maritime Administrator signed a favorable Record of Decision for the Neptune project, contingent upon the applicant's commitment to employ U.S. mariners aboard its vessels servicing the facility. On March 26, 2007, the Maritime Administration issued a Deepwater Port License to Suez LNG to build, own, and operate an LNG receiving and regasification facility.

Neptune LNG LLC, by letter dated May 24, 2012, requested the Maritime Administration allow a temporary five-year suspension of operations at the Neptune Deepwater Port. On June 22, 2013 the Maritime Administration issued an amended deepwater port license to allow the fiver-year suspension of operations. During the suspension period, Neptune must maintain compliance with the terms, conditions and requirements of the deepwater port license amendment.


Northeast Gateway (Excelerate Energy)

Federal Docket for Northeast Gateway (Docket Number: USCG-2005-22219)

On June 13, 2005, Excelerate Energy filed an application for construction and operation of a Deepwater Port terminal to be located in Massachusetts Bay, approximately 13 miles south-southeast of the City of Gloucester, Massachusetts and in federal waters approximately 270 feet in depth. On February 7, 2007, the Maritime Administrator signed the Record of Decision for the Northeast Gateway Deepwater Port project, contingent upon the applicant's commitment to employ U.S. mariners aboard its vessels servicing the facility. On May 14, 2007, the Maritime Administrator signed the license for Excelerate to own, operate and construct the Northeast Gateway Deepwater Port.

http://www.marad.dot.gov/ports_landing_page/deepwater_port_licensing/dwp_current_ports/dwp_current_ports.htm

[Last Lady Charters]

Too add to my other comment. I fish the Gulf out of Ocean Springs MS on a well known boat (Fighting Chicken). Without structure there would not be the fantastic fishing there is there.----abandoned oil rigs and working oil rigs. There is talk of even removing these rigs that are abandoned---even the scientists know this is wrong. One rig might have as many as 1000 species---from the horses mouth a biologist whom I am familiar with there. The regs in the Gulf are also a lot of bull ---- You can catch many, many red snapper too 35 lbs one after another---there is NO SHORTAGE. The Feds are the problem with their misguided regs. All the structure you can get in the ocean only improves fishing

[Joey Dah Fish]

Too add to my other comment. I fish the Gulf out of Ocean Springs MS on a well known boat (Fighting Chicken). Without structure there would not be the fantastic fishing there is there.----abandoned oil rigs and working oil rigs. There is talk of even removing these rigs that are abandoned---even the scientists know this is wrong. One rig might have as many as 1000 species---from the horses mouth a biologist whom I am familiar with there. The regs in the Gulf are also a lot of bull ---- You can catch many, many red snapper too 35 lbs one after another---there is NO SHORTAGE. The Feds are the problem with their misguided regs. All the structure you can get in the ocean only improves fishing
Agreed

[makosnax]

I'm not sure how the rest of feel about this but here is a thought. I firmly believe that based on the amount of regulations we have in this country we are the safest and most pro environmental country in the world when it comes to harvest our natural resources. So I pose this question. Would you prefer a more carefully regulated project that provides more energy independence and more control over the prices and supply of energy ( clean energy NG) the provides our country jobs and national security here or in a less safe place? I would really appreciate everyone thoughts. Whether you agree or disagree please respect everyone's opinion.

I'm all for creating jobs if these projects are not detrimental to the environment BUT let's not be mislead into thinking that this will give us some sort of energy independence or price breaks on fossil fuels. This natural gas has always been earmarked for foreign sales(highest bidder). This deep water port has every intention of being installed for export not import. Hopefully we can get close enough to fish it.

[Joey Dah Fish]

I'm all for creating jobs if these projects are not detrimental to the environment BUT let's not be mislead into thinking that this will give us some sort of energy independence or price breaks on fossil fuels. This natural gas has always been earmarked for foreign sales(highest bidder). This deep water port has every intention of being installed for export not import. Hopefully we can get close enough to fish it.

It certainly will help our energy indepence. We can always stop exporting any time we want. It will increase our production for sure. That also helps us determine the over all price of energy globally. It also helps our national security by not only increasing our production but leverage in energy globally. If done properly its a win win IMHO. But of course there are many sides to the story. But me I'm a big believer in sticking it to the Arab countries that have been screwing us for so many years, especially with a cleaner energy like NG. But I've been wrong before.

[njdiver]

Hopefully we can get close enough to fish it.

There will be very little there to fish on and I very much doubt they will let you drift over it more than once, if at all. See my posts # 10 & 15 in this thread.

[Fishfish]

There will be very little there to fish on and I very much doubt they will let you drift over it more than once, if at all. See my posts # 10 & 15 in this thread.


Thanks again, NJDiver for the wealth of factual information you are providing to this thread! In your search have you found any exact location with coordinates for this proposal? A "what if" is, could this be in any proximity to productive structures/reefs/fishing grounds we fish now, that could become prohibitive.

[njdiver]

Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Port Ambrose Project Deepwater Port Application

The following have graphic representations of the pipelines and turrets locations:

Figure 1.1-1. Proposed Port Ambrose General Project Location .................................................. 1-4

http://www.regulations.gov/contentStreamer?objectId=090000648195e4d4&disposition=attachment&contentType=pdf


Figure 2.1-2. Proposed Port Ambrose Location and Associated Lease Blocks..................................... 2-4

http://www.regulations.gov/contentStreamer?objectId=090000648195e4d5&disposition=attachment&contentType=pdf


Figure 3.7-1. Port Ambrose Ocean Uses .................................................3-62

Figure 3.7-2. Fishing Locations and Fisheries Statistical Reporting Areas .................................... 3-65

http://www.regulations.gov/contentStreamer?objectId=090000648195e954&disposition=attachment&contentType=pdf

[Fishfish]

Figure 1.1-1. Proposed Port Ambrose General Project Location .................................................. 1-4

http://www.regulations.gov/contentSt...ontentType=pdf :

PROPOSED OFFSHORE FACILITY
Proposed Deepwater Port Location
Proposed Deepwater Port Location Atlantic Ocean, 16.1 nautical miles
off of Jones Beach, New York 29.8 kilometers
Proposed Outer Continental Shelf (OCS)
Lease Block
NK 18-12 6708, NK 18-12 6709,
and NK 18-12 6758 NA
Proposed Facility Coordinates
Buoy 1:
40° 19’ 24.6” N, 73° 25’ 45.3” W
Buoy 2:
40° 20’ 09.3” N, 73° 23’ 51.9” W
NA
Water Depth at Facility Location 103 feet 31 meters