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 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]

Originally Posted by Joey Dah Fish

Either way more structure to fish count me in

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

[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.

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.

Originally Posted by Joey Dah Fish

Either way more structure to fish 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/contentSt...ontentType=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/contentSt...ontentType=pdf


All Documents:

http://www.regulations.gov/#!documen...2013-0363-1076