| Author |
 Topic  |
|
mlane
Administrator
USA
86 Posts |
 Posted - 01/20/2005 : 10:25:34 AM
|
I have hired our old friend Al Rogers to perfom in depth research into these proposed projects and bring back the facts. The story will appear in the articles section and in this forum.
Mike Lane
www.rodnreel.com
mlane@rodnreel.com
(504) 780-8551 (w)
(504) 858-0484 (c) |
|
|
n/a
deleted
627 Posts |
Posted - 01/20/2005 : 11:22:46 AM
|
TODAYS PAPER
Gulf heats up as site for cooled gas
Another LNG project proposed
Thursday, January 20, 2005
By Stewart Yerton
Business writer
Marking what would be the company's second such project in the Gulf of Mexico, ConocoPhillips Co. plans to develop a liquefied natural gas terminal in the Gulf, due south of the Texas-Louisiana border, company executives said Wednesday.
The announcement marks the latest in a series of projects announced by major oil and gas firms and independent producers, which are flocking to the Gulf to build offshore ports to receive shipments of the supercooled, highly concentrated fuel from overseas markets. Among those that have proposed facilities are Shell, ChevronTexaco and McMoran Exploration Co.
Commonly called LNG, liquefied natural gas has been used for decades as a fuel source in some locales, most notably Japan.
Although many gas-producing nations have much more natural gas than they can use, it is expensive to ship. The gas must be liquefied overseas, which dramatically shrinks the volume. It is then transported by tanker and ultimately turned back into a gas for use in homes, factories and power plants.
Only recently have natural gas prices reached a level that justifies using LNG widely in the United States, which is increasingly hungry for natural gas.
In June 2003, before a House of Representatives energy committee, Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan bemoaned the shortage in the United States of natural gas terminals, which he said were needed to help stabilize the natural gas markets in the United States. Since then, there has been a rush to build new facilities, including several in the Gulf.
Steve Lawless, a manager for shareholder relations with ConocoPhillips, said the company is basing a big part of its growth strategy on LNG. For 35 years the company has operated a liquefaction facility in Kenai, Alaska, producing fuel shipped to Japan, Lawless said. The company also has obtained regulatory approval to build an onshore facility in Freeport, Texas. And it is seeking approval for facilities near Mobile, Ala., and Long Beach, Calif.
ConocoPhillips has requested regulatory approval from the Coast Guard to build the newest facility, known as Beacon Port. The facility would have the ability to process 1.5 billion cubic feet of natural gas per day, making it the largest of the terminals proposed by the Houston-based energy giant, which was formed in 2002 by the merger of Conoco Inc. and Phillips Petroleum Co.
Lawless declined to say how much ConocoPhillips plans to invest in Beacon Point. However, he said it is likely to cost more than ConocoPhillips' proposed port south of Mobile, which has been estimated to cost between $500 million and $800 million. Lawless said the permitting process would likely take 13 to 15 months and that the terminal could be ready to accept deliveries in 2010.
The Beacon Port terminal would turn the stored liquid back into gas and send it by pipeline 46 miles to an above-water riser platform. The platform would be 29 miles south-southeast of Johnson's Bayou. From the platform, the gas could be shipped through any of three existing pipelines, all of which go to Louisiana.
Environmental concerns have popped up lately because vast quantities of fish eggs and other tiny life forms could be flash-frozen to death by LNG terminals. That's because the terminals use sea water to warm LNG, which is stored at about 260 degrees below zero. The LNG must be warmed to turn it back into a gas before it is shipped through pipelines.
Lawless said any impact would be minimal. The water intake would be positioned at a depth with few life forms, he said, and screens would filter out most of what could get sucked up. He said the company is conducting a two-year study by outside scientists to help it find ways to minimize impact.
ConocoPhillips also is developing liquefaction facilities in a number of overseas locales, including Nigeria, Qatar and Venezuela, which could serve as the source of fuel delivered to the Beacon Port facility, Lawless said.
. . . . . . .
Stewart Yerton can be reached at syerton@timespicayune.com or (504) 826-3495.
FISH TO LEARN AND LEARN TO FISH!!! <'{{{{}><
SPONSORED BY: BOATCITY USA, SEA-PRO BOATS, EVINRUDE OUTBOARDS, RIPTIDE SALTWATER LURES, MINN-KOTA, MAGIC-TILT, CHALLENGER PERFORMANCE TACKLE, REJUVANDE'. |
 |
|
|
n/a
deleted
627 Posts |
Posted - 01/20/2005 : 11:23:47 AM
|
Fisheries could be hurt by streamlined regulations
Sunday, January 16, 2005
Bob Marshall
In the next few weeks, the federal government may give a green light to construction of an offshore gas depot that could reduce the annual redfish catch in Louisiana by as much as 11 percent. And that's not all. That permit could well be followed by many others, resulting in an escalating impact.
Yet the entire permitting process, including environmental review, has taken little more than a year and gained very little attention.
From Our Advertiser
The story of how we got here should be of particular interest to anglers driving around with "Sportsmen for Bush" bumper stickers. A constant in President Bush's political philosophy is his desire to "get government off the back of business," claiming the cost of regulation hurts business profits and the econcomy. He's been doing this by reducing environmental regulations and especially "streamlining" the permitting process. He also thinks some environmental regulations should be voluntary, with businesses policing themselves.
Here's how that ideology has worked for Louisiana's fisheries.
On Nov. 3, 2003, a Houston company applied for a permit to build a facility 38 miles south of Cameron that would take liquefied natural gas from tankers and convert it back to gas for shipping via pipelines across the U.S. The facility would be owned by Shell U.S.
Gas is liquefied by cooling it to temperatures as low as 260 degrees below zero. To convert it back to gas, it must be heated. The facility would accomplish this by pumping hundreds of millions of gallons of Gulf water daily into a radiator-like warming system, a so-called open-loop system. A closed-loop system that needs much less water can be used, but would be too costly, the applicant said, because a significant percentage of the gas being imported would have to be used as a heat source.
In the open-loop system, marine organisms will become trapped against the cooling intake screens, sucked into the system and crushed or killed by the 20-degree drop in temperature of the water coming out of the system, or by the chemicals used in the process.
That became an immediate concern at National Marine Fisheries Service because the plant is just the first of many planned for an area known to marine scientists as the "Fertile Fisheries Crescent." It is, according to the agency, "the most biologically productive area in the Gulf of Mexico ecosystem."
Among the species using the area for breeding grounds, nurseries and foraging areas are redfish, Spanish mackerel, white and brown shrimp, speckled trout, flounder, menhaden, mullet and blue crabs. Because of that, the NMFS has listed the area as "essential fish habitat," which, by law, it is required to protect.
Most Americans assume our environmental regulations would ensure close protection of such vital resources. They are wrong.
This permitting process, recently streamlined, is not in the hands of environmental agencies. In 2002, Congress amended the 1972 Deep Water Port Act with an eye to national security. In the process, it transferred the permitting process from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to the U.S. Coast Guard and the Maritime Administration, neither with much experience in conducting environmental reviews of sensitive areas.
The applicant is still required to supply a draft environmental impact statement, which is sent out for public comment. But that document is not written by government agencies or scientists. It is produced by the company seeking the permit.
And (surprise, surprise) this document presented to the Coast Guard last February said there would be little negative impact on the surrounding marine environment.
Fortunately, under the National Environmental Protection Act, the NMFS is required to provide its own comments on projects that could affect marine fisheries. And, when the NMFS looked at this environmental impact statement, it didn't like what it found.
The NMFS said the company used incorrect models for many of its assessments, in one case underestimating impacts on fish by 500 percent. One example: although the applicant concluded mortality to juvenile redfish would be insignificant, the NMFS calculations placed the average kill at 86,000 to 432,000 fish per year.
The agency summed up its problems with the document in this unambiguous broadside: "Throughout the draft environmental impact statement, conclusions are made that the facility will have no significant impacts on essential fish habitat, fishery stocks, and the coastal environment. . . . These conclusions are not supported by hard scientific data and rely on much speculation."
The NMFS said only closed-loop systems should be used. That conclusion was shared by the Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries, the Gulf of Mexico Fisheries Management Council and the Gulf Marines Fisheries Commission.
End of the story? Not under this system.
The final impact statement was released Dec. 3, and nothing had been changed. Apparently the Coast Guard is standing by the conclusions of the company-produced impact statement.
The NMFS has fired off a final letter detailing the long list of problems in the impact statement, as well as the terrible threat posed by the growing number of these facilities planned for the Gulf, one of which would be within 20 miles of Venice. And the Gulf Council has claimed the annual loss to Louisiana's fishing industry in redfish mortality would be $34.2 million.
Yet the final decision due Feb. 16 will not come from any agency charged with protecting our natural resources. It will come from the Department of Transportation, which houses the Coast Guard and the Maritime Admininstration, the same agencies that found no problem with an impact statement produced by the company seeking the permit
FISH TO LEARN AND LEARN TO FISH!!! <'{{{{}><
SPONSORED BY: BOATCITY USA, SEA-PRO BOATS, EVINRUDE OUTBOARDS, RIPTIDE SALTWATER LURES, MINN-KOTA, MAGIC-TILT, CHALLENGER PERFORMANCE TACKLE, REJUVANDE'. |
|
|
|
n/a
deleted
627 Posts |
Posted - 01/20/2005 : 11:25:09 AM
|
For Immediate Release
Contact: Charlie Smith, Louisiana Charter Boat Association Executive Director
Home: 100 Fairfax Place, New Orleans, and LA 70131
Phone: 504-481-1492 (cell)
504-481-1492 Home/office
Charter Boat Group opposes Offshore Open Loop Plan
The Louisiana Charter Boat Association today announced "total opposition" to a Shell Oil plan to use super-heated Gulf water to enhance the production of Liquefied Natural Gas off the Cameron Parish Coast. Marine biologists estimate the technique could destroy over ten per cent of the Redfish population annually.
In a statement released today, LCBA President Mary Poe of Big Lake Guide Services said, "We're for economic development but not at the expense of our fishery. Not only would the Redfish suffer, but any other species that breeds offshore would have heavy losses. Crabs, plankton, King Mackerel, Snapper, all offshore breeders could be impacted, as well as all the micro-organisms that start the food chain in all our waters."
The group asked that, "All citizens of Louisiana band together to stop this dangerous practice immediately. We are for economic development and would not oppose a system which would not do such irreparable damage to our natural resources. Shell should consider it's options and follow the system which does not damage our fragile eco-system."
The National Marine Fisheries Council has asked that Shell be required to pay over 30 million in mitigation charges if they are allowed to utilize the controversial methodology.
"That's all fine and good for a quasi-governmental agency to get damages," said Poe, "But exactly what help will that be to the 100 Charter Boat families who derive their entire livelihood from the guide business in Cameron. This plan could also impact the five hundred guides in other Louisiana waters as other companies might pursue this same destructive option. Besides, the last time I looked, there were no water barriers in the Gulf; what impacts us in the West will also impact the Central and Eastern fishery."
"If you take the charter boat industry as a whole, our five hundred captains have a very beneficial impact on the tourism industry and, if considered as one company, we would be one of our state's major employers. To chance ruining the fishery for ourselves and the over 300,000 salt water fishermen of Louisiana is a very foolish proposition."
Commenting on the proposal, Kirk Stansel of Hackberry Rod and Gun Club, said, "Look, they say they will kill about ten per cent of the total Redfish population but this is not a one time thing. Ten per cent this year, ten per cent of what remains next year, ten per cent the following year. In less than a decade, we could be out of fish. We have twenty to twenty-five guides working for us year round. What do we do when there's nothing to catch? We already have a dead zone, we don't need to have another one. "
Erik Rue of Calcasieu Charter Service is also concerned. "I am interested in learning more about the science behind these findings of the potential impact on our fisheries. Obviously, if the studies can be verified, this would have a huge negative impact on our area and other Gulf Coastal communities that depend on our fisheries for their livelihood. While I am certain that the offshore plan is a better alternative than having more dredging and erosion of our inshore channels to accommodate the huge tankers carrying the LNG, these new studies suggesting such an impact on our fisheries should be address before any approval of this proposal.
Poe asked that all wildlife groups take a position. 'We'd like the CCA, the Wildlife Federation, the Audubon Society, everyone to take a look at this and help us defeat this plan. This is one area where Crabbers, commercial fishermen, guides and recreational's can make common cause. It will kill us all."
The LCBA is asking all elected officials and concerned citizens to take a stand against the Shell Oil plan. The U.S. Coast Guard is scheduled to make a decision on allowing the practice in the next few weeks.
"The clock is ticking and greed is first out of the gate. We're not talking spotted owls here, we're talking about he backbone of our fishery. We're talking real dollars and a real economic impact. If government can get upset about underwear plants and football teams, We think they need to help us with this issue as well. " Poe concluded.
Charlie Smith
LCBA
FISH TO LEARN AND LEARN TO FISH!!! <'{{{{}><
SPONSORED BY: BOATCITY USA, SEA-PRO BOATS, EVINRUDE OUTBOARDS, RIPTIDE SALTWATER LURES, MINN-KOTA, MAGIC-TILT, CHALLENGER PERFORMANCE TACKLE, REJUVANDE'. |
|
|
|
n/a
deleted
627 Posts |
Posted - 01/20/2005 : 11:26:42 AM
|
TO EVERYONE THAT IS SENDING ME E-MAILS!!
Please post a copy in the forum when you send it. This is a subject we need alot of support on. My next question is.
WHERE IS THE CCA, EPA, LWDF, NOW?
WHERE ARE THE OFFSHORE CHARTER CAPTAINS?
THE INSHORE CAPTAINS, SHRIMPERS, CRABBERS, ANYONE WHO MAKES A LIVING OFF THE SEE?
WHERE ARE THE SPORT FISHERMAN?
Apperently most people don't understand this and what's going on, I've done a little research and will do more but don't like anything I see.
I guess we'll here from them when they start WHINNING about no fish, canceled charters, going out of buisnee. If this goes through we won't have to worry about GATED CANAL'S , there will not be any fish behind them to CRY about.
FISH TO LEARN AND LEARN TO FISH!!! <'{{{{}><
SPONSORED BY: BOATCITY USA, SEA-PRO BOATS, EVINRUDE OUTBOARDS, RIPTIDE SALTWATER LURES, MINN-KOTA, MAGIC-TILT, CHALLENGER PERFORMANCE TACKLE, REJUVANDE'.
Edited by - TEAM PSYCHO on 01/20/2005 13:53:26 |
|
|
|
twentynine
Average Member
USA
245 Posts |
Posted - 01/20/2005 : 12:42:10 PM
|
If PETA is against it then I am for it.
I do have some questions.
How far offshore?
Where exactly offshore?
Right off hand invoking the name PETA in hopes of getting any help out of me or most other sportsman, well you might have #@$%$*-up.
|
|
|
|
Sandman1
Advanced Member
USA
1184 Posts |
Posted - 01/20/2005 : 8:40:04 PM
|
quote:
I have hired our old friend Al Rogers to perfom in depth research into these proposed projects and bring back the facts. The story will appear in the articles section and in this forum.
Mike Lane
www.rodnreel.com
mlane@rodnreel.com
(504) 780-8551 (w)
(504) 858-0484 (c)
I am glad you are doing that Mike. I really have concerns about this, but just don't feel like I know enough about it. And I am having trouble figuring out what is true about it, because the level of the rhetoric was so high from the very beginning. I would like to get some objective info on this.
Is it time for a cold beer yet? |
|
|
|
n/a
deleted
627 Posts |
Posted - 01/20/2005 : 9:06:51 PM
|
This might work:
1. Letters to the Editor in every market in Louisiana. ALSO, although unless its delayed, the hearing is too close for any magazine to have an impact, letters to Outdoor Magazines.
2. Encourage Don Dubuc and others to stay on the story. Call talk radio shows with the simple message that "We don't want another Dead Zone in the Gulf." Its a short and pithy message which is easy for anyone to remember and will catch the attention of lawmakers.
3. Email your list of friends and fishing buddies and get them involved. You can use the Charter Boat Association release, posted on rod and reel.com and the Bob Marshall article in today's Picayune but we won't get any Republican help if the Bush bashing is part of the plan. In Louisiana, there are a lot more Republican outdoors advocates than most parts of the company. I advise that we talk about the issue and not get into partisan politics.
4. Email every lawmaker you know, especially your own, and keep telling them no more dead zones. At the least, this should spark some inquiries which could delay the project and give us more time to fight.
5. Use the emails to let Shell Corporate know we intend to let the world know that they are polluting an irreplaceable environment in our Gulf. Flood them with info and complaints -- the threat may gain more attention than an actual boycott. Companies are always eager to turn defeat into victory. "Look what we headed off by changing our plans..."
I don't really care about who's at fault; well, I do but that cannot be part of defeating the Open Loop. I'm just going to do what has worked for me in the past and see what happens.
FISH TO LEARN AND LEARN TO FISH!!! <'{{{{}><
SPONSORED BY: BOATCITY USA, SEA-PRO BOATS, EVINRUDE OUTBOARDS, RIPTIDE SALTWATER LURES, MINN-KOTA, MAGIC-TILT, CHALLENGER PERFORMANCE TACKLE, REJUVANDE'. |
|
|
|
n/a
deleted
1 Posts |
Posted - 01/20/2005 : 9:09:38 PM
|
I am sure everyone agrees that the proposed LNG facility would be devastating, but does anyone have any ideas on how we collectively can stop it. I have heard nothing in the media about this issue. Why isnt the state crying about this. Is there that much hush money to go around? Is any group doing anything to stop this now?
|
|
|
|
greyrooster
New Member
USA
7 Posts |
Posted - 01/21/2005 : 08:20:55 AM
|
TEAM PSYCHO: I have major concerns with your anti LNG campaign. My concerns are:
(1) I need much more info from parties that are not going psycho on the issue. There is always two sides to every story. Such as:
(2). Do we need relief from high gas prices? My answer is yes. My fuel bill is 40% higher than a few years ago. Will LNG take pressue off fuel oil prices? Is losing 10% the fish worth reduced fuel prices? Is the 10% figure realistic or just another exaggeration politically motivated. I don't know. Maybe Mile Lane's hiring of an investigator will shine some light on the subject.
(3) Disparaging remarks concerning the Coast Guards handling of the issue. If you've noticed some postings lately the majority hold the Coast Guard in high esteem. They are concerned about our fisheries.
For your information the Coast Guard is not affiliated with the Dept of Transportation. They are part of the Dept of Homeland Security. If you are well informed you should have known this.
(4) Disparaging remarks concerning the President of our country simply means that you may be another poor loser, using this issue to attack the person the majority of citizens elected. All of my sportman friends are pro-Bush. Personally, I am not crazy about Bush but would prefer a Muslim Cleric Terrorist to the traitor Kerry. I'm a vietnam vet who suffered because of him. Hanoi Jane and Paris Kerry not my favorite people. Bringing your personal politics into the issue turned off many (half or more sportmen that are republicans).
(5) Hysterically calling for PETA to become involved in this issue. This simply means you are not well versed on PETA's adgenda. If you are not well versed on PETA, our enemy, then are you well informed on the other issues?
(6) I do not wish to get into a fight with oil companies when the results could end up being exclusion zones around the oil rigs I love to fish.
Life is give and take. Such as, who destroys more young fish the oil companies or shrimpers? Have you followed a shrimp boat lately? Theres a reason hundreds of sea gulls and porpoise are following them. To my way of thinking having shrimp is worth the trade off.
My recommendation is to slow down. Take politics out of equation. Insure that all info is correct and keep the lunatics at PETA out.
We need real unbiased info. I'm not against paradeing in front of city hall, I just want to make sure I'm not a fool when I do.
I sincerely hope your assertions are correct and unbiased. If they prove to be I will get on the band wagon with same fervor you have.
Good luck
|
|
|
|
n/a
deleted
3 Posts |
Posted - 01/21/2005 : 11:24:55 AM
|
It seems there has been gathering interest in the recreational fishing community in the last couple of weeks concerning the LNG issue. I have read the posts here and talked to a few concerned fishermen on the phone. There seems to be a lot of misinformation and lack of information on the LNG issue. I work for the Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission and I have been monitoring the LNG issue for the Commission and also the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council for over a year now. I would like to take this opportunity to provide some information on the LNG issue and its possible impacts on fish stocks.
LNG stands for liquefied natural gas. It is natural gas cooled to roughly -260° F at normal air pressure. Natural gas is primarily methane. The conversion of natural gas into liquid is called liquefaction and is achieved through refrigeration. Liquefaction reduces the volume by approximately 600 times, making it more economical to transport between continents in specially designed ships. LNG is converted back to a gas by passing the liquid through vaporizers that warm it. LNG has been successfully transported and used for some 45 years. Most LNG is imported to the United States from Trinidad and Tobago, Qatar, Algeria, Nigeria, Australia and Indonesia. It is transported in large, modern tankers to one of four U.S. import terminals, in Cove Point, Maryland; Everett, Massachusetts; Elba Island, Georgia; and Lake Charles, Louisiana. Upon reaching its destination, LNG is turned back into a gas and sent out via pipelines as ordinary natural gas.
Most of the concern over the newly proposed LNG facilities is over their impact to marine fishery stocks through impingement and entrainment. These impacts will be caused by the use of a once through flow system (open rack vaporizer or open loop system) to warm the LNG back to a gas. An open loop system will use approximately 100-200 million gallons of seawater a day to heat the LNG back into a gas. Once the seawater has passed through the system it will be approximately 20° F than when it entered the system. It will also contain sodium hypochlorite as an antibiofouling agent. It is expected that any fish and shrimp eggs or larvae and also zooplankton will be killed if they are passed through the system. Open loop systems are expected to kill billions of fish and shrimp eggs and larvae each year. An alternative technology to heat the LNG exists that would not kill any eggs or larvae. This technology is a submerged combustion vaporizer (closed loop) system. In a closed loop system you need a fuel source to heat the water back up after passing through the system. The readily available fuel source is the natural gas that has already been regasified. A closed loop system would burn approximately 1-3% of the natural gas produced by the facility each year.
Now concerning the impacts to marine fish. As part of the application permitting process, the applicant must produce an environmental impact statement (EIS) that details the impact that the proposed project will have on the environment. Most of the recent discussions on this forum have centered on the Gulf Landing LLC proposal by Shell Oil. Gulf Landing proposes to construct a LNG facility approximately 38 miles south of Cameron, Louisiana in water depths of approximately 55 feet. The proposed port would consist primarily of a terminal to receive, store, and regasify LNG. In order to regasify the LNG, the applicant’s preferred alternative is to utilize an open rack vaporizer (open loop system) utilizing 136 million gallons of seawater per day flowing over a series of panel coils to warm the LNG. The EIS produced by Gulf Landing states that the use of an open loop system could impact up to 8.5 percent of the Gulf Mexico red drum total landings and 11.5 percent of the Louisiana red drum landings. This loss would approximate over 1 million pounds of red drum lost to the recreational fishery annually. The EIS states that operating costs for a closed loop system would exceed costs of an open loop system by an estimated $20,798,886 to $43,354,831 per year. Examining the impact to the Louisiana red drum fishery, the use of an open loop system would cost the public approximately $34,270,000 each year. While the use of an open loop system would probably impact red drum more than other species, there would still be monetary impacts to other marine fish species, but the impacts to other marine species weren’t examined in depth in the EIS.
One of the things lacking in the EIS was mitigation to offset any impacts to marine fish species. The proposed mitigation consists of: (1) siting the water intake 36 ft below mean sea level; (2) using a 6.35 mm mesh screen; (3) maintaining an intake velocity of 0.5 ft/sec; (4) not exceeding an average intake of 136 million gallons per day averaged over a one-year period; (5) limiting the amount of sodium hypochlorite used for anti-biofouling; and, (6) monitoring the impacts of project implementation on marine fishery species. These measures are unlikely to result in meaningful reductions in entrainment mortality. No data exist to suggest that fish eggs and larvae are less abundant at a depth of 36 ft. Furthermore, these early life stages are so small that they will readily pass through the intake screens and cannot overcome the intake velocity. Regardless of the concentrations of sodium hypochlorite used to prevent biofouling, the combination of pressure and temperature differentials and the use of biocides are acknowledged in the FEIS to kill all entrained organisms. If the project is approved for use of an open loop system, then mitigation should be required for all fishery impacts. Looking only at red drum, Gulf Landing should be required annually to mitigate for over 1 million pounds of red drum lost. This does not include mitigating for the billions of other fish eggs, larvae, and zooplankton that will be removed from the Gulf of Mexico food web.
More information on the Gulf Landing application can by found at http://dms.dot.gov/search/searchFormSimple.cfm and typing in 16860 in the search box. It will return all of the documents related to the Gulf Landing LNG application. There are two pages of information sorted by date. The second page contains the Final Environmental Impact Statement and the date should be around December 3, 2004. I believe that Section 4 of the final EIS contains the information on fishery impacts. You also might want to read the comment letter from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. That letter does a very good job of detailing impacts to marine fish.
One thing to keep in mind, Section 316(b) of the Clean Water Act requires the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to ensure that the location, design, construction, and capacity of cooling water intake structures reflect the best technology available to protect aquatic organisms from being killed or injured by impingement or entrainment. Unfortunately Section 316(b) rules only apply to cooling water intakes and not heating water intakes. The use of the word “cooling” means that the EPA does not have any regulatory authority over the type of heating system that that the LNG industry can use. Because of this, the LNG industry might not be held to the same standards as the power generating industry.
The comment deadline for the Gulf Landing EIS has passed. If you still have concerns over this facility, you might want to contact your governor and your Congressional delegation. Let them know that you are a fishermen and you spend money fishing and then let them know your thoughts on this issue.
Jeff
Edited by - jeffrester on 01/21/2005 11:26:19 |
|
|
|
DrewC
Advanced Member
665 Posts |
Posted - 01/25/2005 : 10:13:53 PM
|
What information is there available about other open-loop LNG facilities and how have they affected local fisheries? I'm skeptical about the estimate of 10% losses of redfish harvests statewide if these facilities are 40 miles offshore. Will the cooler water have any net positive effect due to increased oxygen capacity? I know 200 million gallons a day sounds like a lot of water, but it represents a tiny area around the facility. 200 million gallons is the amount of water in an area 730 ft x 730 ft x 50 feet deep. A square mile of ocean that is 50 feet deep is about 10.4 billion gallons. How far away from the intake is the cold water discharge? Doesn't the "open loop" really re-use the same water from the general area of the facility? How could 10% of any marine life be affected by such a small area? Like grayrooser, I need more info. I plan to review the information present here, and thanks to those who are getting involved in this.
Let's not forget, that we're losing shoreline faster than you can blink, and the loss of land due to coastal erosion, saltwater infiltration, and subsidence is taking it's toll on the inshore breeding grounds that are essential to marine life. The only cost-effective way to replace lost land is via major Mississippi River diversion projects, especially since many areas such as Cocodrie are actually sinking based on elevation studies. The problem with getting anything done when it comes to diverting the river is that there are too many oyster leases that will be affected and thus people that will sue, and too many recreational and commercial fishermen that oppose any long-term solution that affects them in the short term.
I'm not saying we shouldn't be concerned about the LNG facilities, but I just think there are bigger problems to tackle in this great State of ours. |
|
|
|
mlane
Administrator
USA
86 Posts |
Posted - 01/31/2005 : 2:03:01 PM
|
This
is the most important story in months!
|
|
|
|
joenick
New Member
USA
13 Posts |
Posted - 02/03/2005 : 10:37:06 AM
|
Decisions should be based on all information availiable, I'm not sure that some of the information gathered is reporting or knee jerk reaction to any change from normal. Let's look at all sides of an issue before any condemnations are made.
**********************************************************************
Corrected final Environmental Impact Statement further confirms no significant impact of Gulf Landing LNG Project on Redfish
Shell US Gas & Power has been informed that the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) intends to issue a correction to the final environmental impact statement (EIS), which further confirms the conclusion of the original EIS that the proposed Gulf Landing liquefied natural gas (LNG) terminal will have no significant impacts on fish stocks in the Gulf of Mexico.
The corrected EIS will demonstrate that the actual expected impacts on redfish population are 98% less than those attributed to the EIS by some news reports. In fact, the corrected EIS will estimate that the average impact will be less than one percent of the impact that recreational fishermen have on redfish.
The USCG prepared the EIS in cooperation with a number of federal agencies, including National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Minerals Management Service (MMS), and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
“It is regrettable that inaccurate information has been reported in some media outlets and we appreciate the USCG’s and NOAA’s efforts to correct the impact numbers, “ said Greg Koehler, Gulf Landing’s Project Manager. “The USCG’s independent evaluation clearly concludes that Gulf Landing’s choice of gas re-vaporizations technology will result in no significant impacts on redfish, shrimp or any other species.”
The final EIS included a comprehensive analysis comparing open-rack vaporizers to submerged combustion vaporizers. After taking into consideration a wide variety of environmental, economic, safety and security considerations, the USCG concluded in the EIS that the use of open-rack vaporizers was “best available technology” for the Gulf Landing project.
Gulf Landing has committed to participate in a monitoring program to ensure operations are consistent with the findings of the EIS. Monitoring will include NOAA, USCG and Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries. Gulf Landing is working with NOAA to ensure that Gulf of Mexico fish stocks continue to rebound while addressing the U.S. need for additional supplies of clean-burning LNG. In addition to monitoring, items such as reducing water usage and conducting additional research on fisheries in the Gulf of Mexico are under consideration.
“Shell has a long history of support for the Gulf of Mexico marine environment, contributing more than $5 million over the past few years to protect and enhance Gulf of Mexico habitat,” said Greg Koehler, Gulf Landing’s Project Manager. “We would not undertake any project that would threaten the existence of any species.”
Gulf Landing LLC filed an application in November, 2003, to build a gravity-based LNG structure in 55 feet of water 38 miles offshore Cameron, Louisiana. Gulf Landing will supply one billion cubic feet of natural gas per day for the U.S. Gulf Landing takes advantage of its location in an existing oil & gas production area to have the capability to connect with five major interstate pipelines to deliver natural gas to parts of the Southeast, Midwest, Northeast and Mid-Atlantic U.S.
|
|
|
|
twentynine
Average Member
USA
245 Posts |
Posted - 02/04/2005 : 12:45:39 AM
|
Hey thanks Mr Joe for the update. Finnally a voice of sanity.
Talk about knee jerk reactions.
This evening I noticed that Mr Team phsyco removed the referrence to PETA from his post. Gee, I guess he got the point of my previous post on this thread.
In regards to the LNG facility. I guess, I am still on the fence, haven't made up my mind yet.
|
|
|
|
n/a
deleted
3 Posts |
Posted - 02/04/2005 : 08:12:31 AM
|
Why is it a knee jerk reaction if the EIS produced for the project states that the impacts could be up to 1 million pounds of red drum? I have heard that the model used to produce that number had an error in it and that after correction the new mortality estimates aren't as bad. The only problem is that I heard this only. I have not seen any reports stating this or any corrections released. I talked to the Coast Guard person in charge last week. He stated that new mortality estimates exist, but they haven't been released yet. My question to him was why haven't they been released? Doesn't the public deserve the right to review the new estimates before the decision is made? You can say whatever you want concerning the impact, but until the corrections are released how is the public supposed to know anything different from what has already been published in the EIS? Is the public to assume that the new estimates are true without being able to verify them? The new estimates should have been released for public review as soon as they were produced.
Joenick can you please provide the source of your article? I can't seem to find it anywhere.
Jeff
|
|
|
|
joenick
New Member
USA
13 Posts |
Posted - 02/04/2005 : 7:51:13 PM
|
Jeff
It is a Shell Oil press release, I also looked for it on the internet and could not locate it. I work for one of Shell's company's and it is part of the information that is sent out to all locations in these days of Globilization. I had no reason to believe that it was not released to the public and treated it that way.
My knee-jerk statement was in response to some of the requests made by several orginizations with very little information. I re-read most of the posts on this subject and I still hold the opinion that some knee-jerk reactions is going on. If I'm correct in your explanation,which was very good, you said that the EIS was prepared by Shell but in their statement it said that the Coast Guard with help for other agencies prepared it.
I'm on the side of what's the right thing to do both for the environment and with the realization that businesses must operate but, without harming the resourse that they use. I also want the correct information in order to make an informed decision and who I work for will not have a bearing when that decision is made.
We have a camp in Hopedale and I would love to see some of these "knee-jerk" reactions used against those who would leave the MRGO open for another 10 years.
Joe
|
|
|
|
n/a
deleted
7 Posts |
Posted - 02/06/2005 : 12:03:26 AM
|
I've shared this information with my JROTC students in all my classes. It's THEIR future that this type of operation threatens. I've even got a piece on this pending bit of nasty assault on marine life on my school website. Our mission is to "Build better, more productive citizens for America". Making the cadets aware and keeping them informed is the least I can do.
Everyone I know, I've already made them aware of this proposed operation. I'd really hate to see this come to pass and have major dead zones in the gulf. This isn't just a Louisiana issue, it's a national issue for all that enjoy coming here to fish or enjoy our under-paid fishermen's hard-earned catches. Energy prices are already higher than I feel they should be, but I'm willing to pay a few dollars more if it means avoiding this impending, seemingly disastrous threat to marine life...30+ miles off shore or not!
'Sgt 'Spoon
Arabi
|
|
|
|
DrewC
Advanced Member
665 Posts |
Posted - 02/08/2005 : 4:23:41 PM
|
| I had a feeling the original EIS estimates were wrong. |
|
|
|
n/a
deleted
4 Posts |
Posted - 02/10/2005 : 01:22:23 AM
|
So, now 3.8 per cent of the eggs and larvae will be destroyed if Shell Oil builds the open loop LNG system. Wow, what a relief. But wait! There are 4, or, 5, or 6 more terminals proposed using the same open loop system. Let's see, 3 and 3 and 3 and 3 and 3. You know, pretty soon we're talking about real numbers again. And each year, as the cumulative effects become known the RedFish, shrimp, menhaden, crabs, plankton, all the creatures that swim in the Gulf, diminish. And the industries that depend on our fishery go into decline.
In the meantime, the company discharges its environmental responsibilities with a few million dollars for Coastal restoration. And, they're going to monitor the kill so we will know when the fish are being destroyed. Wow, again. I am so impressed. And we can use Japan, that noted RedFish center, as a role model.
The company says it can't build the terminals profitably without using the system that destroys our fishery. More slowly that at first thought, but inexorably, year after year. And while we have concentrated on Shell and Gulf Landing because that's where the devastating report originated, almost every oil company and some new ones have lined up asking for permits to kill our resources in return for a few bucks of tribute.
I am sure that when he first salt water crept up the oil field canals and wiped out the oaks at Oak River and the sustaining grasses that held the marsh together, the same mind set said the damage was acceptable. Now we are faced with a multi billion dollar problem. And the companies that destroyed the marsh give us a few million in "So, sorry" money.
Why is it that closed loop systems are used off the coasts of other states but not here. I can see the corporate office statement, "Take it to Louisiana, they're so hungry for economic development, they'll accept anything."
It's been true in the past.
They won't even build windmills off the coast of Massachusetts and guess where the gas is going? The East and West Coast urban concentrations are desperate for our resources. But will they do anything to disturb their own environments. Absolutely not, that's for the suckers in Louisiana.
We already have an industry that amounts to almost $300 million per year. Do we destroy one to build another?
If one company says it can't build a plant with a closed loop system, I am sure there will be another in the wings. There are already a dozen or more projects slated for the Gulf. They're here because we have the infrastructure and the gas. To paraphrase a friend of mine. "The only reason history repeats itself is because we didn't pay attention the first time around."
The first time around, we were raped and robbed of our coastline. What will happen now? Last night, yet another company proposed building twin 42 inch pipelines down the middle of Cameron Parishes Big Lake -- the most productive trophy trout lake in Louisiana. Do you really think they will stop at one Open Loop plant, two pipelines. The rape and pillage of our natural resources is being revisited while we debate motors, boats and baits. Ah well, I'm in my sixties and most of my relatives have left for healthier climes. But they still visit to fish. I hope your children don't have to ask you what you did while the fishery was being destroyed.
It's too big a risk. Use the safe technology.
Charlie Smith
Louisiana Charter Boat Association
Yo-Zuri Charlie |
|
|
|
joenick
New Member
USA
13 Posts |
Posted - 02/10/2005 : 7:29:08 PM
|
YO,
I'm not sure where your 3.8 % numbers came from unless it is a result of the following from Shell's press release. "In fact, the corrected EIS will estimate that the average impact will be less than one percent of the impact that recreational fishermen have on redfish." or from CCA's relase that was sent to me which states in part; "We have since been informed by the federal government that its study was flawed and that it is being corrected to reflect that the possible impact on redfish stocks is considerably less than originally reported. CCA's position remains that we are opposed to citing LNG terminals which negatively impact marine resources. We are carefully reviewing the data to determine whether the damage now reported by the government can be mitigated." I would like to see us all make an informed decision but you have to see both sides in order to make that decision. I still have not made my decision whether or not to support an open loop system versus closed loop. You really trashed the Oil industry pretty good, you probably don't fish around any of those oil rigs of in any of the pipe-line canals which has opened the marsh and allowed folks to make a living by being fishing boat captains. Did they do harm to the marsh? Sure they did but if they closed all the canals and pulled those rigs out of the Gulf would you still be in business? Have you checked out the by-catch from the shrimp boats or what the water looks like when the oyster trawlers are finished for the day? I've rambled and I am sorry, but the point is we have industries who want no rules to govern them by the same token we have business people and sportsmen who will kill the last of any species if they can make a buck or hang it on the wall. Both need the type of conversation that we have been having about this issue, I just hope we can get the right information in time to do the right thing.
Joe
|
|
|
|
n/a
deleted
4 Posts |
Posted - 02/12/2005 : 5:45:05 PM
|
1. There were fishermen and trappers making a living in the Louisiana marsh a long time before they started cutting canals in the marsh.
2. If you look at the map of proposed LNG projects, you will come to the depressing conclusion that we are the prime site for open loop systems. Other states won't let them get away with what we will.
3. If the figures were wrong before, in the absence of more study, how can we be sure they're not still wrong? Nor has the potential multiplier effect of a number of plants working in concert in the Gulf been established.
4. I'm not against LNG's per se, but if they can build closed loop systems everywhere else, why do they insist on open loop systems here? It may cut profits a tad but they're making money everywhere else, or why would they continue to build closed loop systems in other venues?
5. How do we benefit? The rest of the nation gets cheaper gas and we get a threat to a major industry. Whatever short term construction jobs are generated will soon go away. The oil companies have already moved all the good management and professional jobs to Texas in a steady and inexorable out-migration from Louisiana.
6. This is just a beginning. Already, one company, Chenier LNG in Cameron Parish, has proposed building twin 42 inch pipelines down the middle of Big Lake -- arguably the finest trophy trout lake in the nation. The land surrounding the Lake is a wildlife refuge and they don't want another pipeline (they have a brine line) ruining their habitat.
7. The 3.8% came from the revised EIS.
8. Thirty years ago I had a heated argument with a Yankee environmentalist in which I defended those oil rigs as the major fish habitat and the offshore fisherman's friend. They have a good Gulf record. LNG's don't.
9. I am not impressed by a few million for mitigation. That won't help the thousands of recreational and professional fishermen who utilize the Gulf. Four or five million when it will take 20 BILLION or so to stop coastal erosion. Gimme a break.
10. Finally, I think we are all on the same side. We all want to preserve our fishery. I am suspicious based on past performance. What if me and the others opposed to this thing are right; will you tell your progeny. "I believed them and they lied." That will be a bit late. My aim is to slow this thing down and get a few more opinions. It's too big a risk to accept the assurances of those who have been wrong before. I remember the building of the "Sure to be a safe MRGO." They can afford to be wrong. They'll just pack their bags and go back to their corporate offices. In the meantime, we'll be looking at a proliferation of little dead zones in the Gulf.
Finally, if I sound impassioned, it's because I am. I have a daughter who comes to Louisiana once a year to fish the Chandeleurs with her daddy. I have a fish on my wall from Big Lake. I hope to have some grandkids who I can take to Big Lake, Shell Beach, or Grande Isle and catch fish. I don't want to say Daddy did nothing while Rome burned down around me. Let's slow this train down until we know ALL the facts. Right now, we have company estimates, government revisions, and bulletins from a disinterested bureacracy. That's not good enough for me.
Yo-Zuri Charlie
Edited by - Yo Zuri Charlie on 02/12/2005 17:52:08 |
|
|
|
joenick
New Member
USA
13 Posts |
Posted - 02/13/2005 : 11:30:55 AM
|
Well said and that is the reason I have not made my decision. This is all that I asked, Let's get the facts and then draw battle lines.
Joe
|
|
|
|
Sandman1
Advanced Member
USA
1184 Posts |
Posted - 02/13/2005 : 4:49:45 PM
|
It seems like the more info that comes out about this, the less of a threat it seems. The way I read the revised report, it stated that the # of eggs killed would be comparable to .1% to 1% of the number of redfish that would be caught annually. but eggs aren't the same as fish. The vast majority of those eggs never survive, so comparing numbers of eggs to numbers of fish doesn't really work.
I still don't really trust any of the numbers that I have heard from either side and I am all in favor of taking a better look at this process. Of course we would all prefer a closed loop system, but if the companies involved say it is a open loop system or nothing, we need to look at it closely before we tell them to take a hike. There are only a handful of the closed loop facilities in the country, so maybe that isn't really a vialbe alternative. Closed loop systems aren't exactly popping up all over the place.
I don't know the answer here, but from what I have seen and heard, nobody else does either.
Is it time for a cold beer yet? |
|
|
|
n/a
deleted
4 Posts |
Posted - 02/14/2005 : 2:00:44 PM
|
Finally, we are all in agreement. No one really knows all the facts so let's NOT make a final decision with such long range effects until we know all the facts. The reason I've been pushing to stop this project at this time is because the Coast Guard is set to make their decision on Wednesday, February 16th. I am fearful that if they make the wrong decision and we find that out later, it will be too late.
The fact that I represent an industry that depends on a viable fishery has less to do with my opposition than the fact that I want there to be something for my kids and grand kids to catch. Hopefully, while I am still kicking and casting.
I also hunt ducks and have watched that sport go to hell in an empty basket.
Now, if I still drank, it would be time for that beer.
Yo-Zuri Charlie |
|
|
|
GRNAaron
New Member
USA
5 Posts |
Posted - 02/21/2005 : 10:14:21 AM
|
Gulf terminals raise environmental concerns
BY CHAD CALDER
ccalder@theadvocate.com
Advocate business writer
http://www.2theadvocate.com/stories/022005/bus_biz001.shtml
Environmental and conservation groups are concerned the federal government is not doing enough to prevent proposed liquefied natural gas terminals from harming fish and shrimp stocks in the Gulf of Mexico.
Louisiana has one existing LNG facility near Lake Charles, but there are 13 proposed throughout the Gulf of Mexico, onshore and off.
Many of these facilities, if approved, would use a process of pulling 135 million gallons of Gulf water per day through the terminal to heat up liquefied gas, a process that would kill any plankton and fish eggs pulled through the intake.
The concern, voiced by the Sierra Club and the Gulf Restoration Network and backed by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, is that the current approval process does not measure the potential cumulative impact of having multiple LNG terminals operating in the Gulf.
With the price of natural gas in the United States high and the prospects for Gulf drilling low, the oil and gas and chemical industries have been pushing for the development of liquefied natural gas terminals in the Gulf.
The terminals cost hundreds of millions of dollars to build and would have an impact on the economy, but don't provide a lot of jobs in their day-to-day operation.
The terminals would take delivery by huge tankers of super-cooled, highly-condensed gas in liquid form from foreign countries where gas is cheap. The terminals would then warm the liquefied gas to return it to a gaseous form and pump it through the existing pipeline structure.
The higher volumes of cheaper gas would provide relief to the region's refineries and chemical plants that use gas as a fuel and feedstock.
At the heart of the issue is the so-called "open-rack ventilation system" many proposed LNG terminals would use to raise the temperature of the liquefied gas. While any adult marine life can easily avoid getting pulled into the system, eggs and plankton cannot and wouldn't survive the process.
NOAA recently sent a letter to the U.S. Coast Guard, one of the two federal entities that handles the permitting of offshore LNG terminals, saying that even the most conservative estimates show unacceptable levels of depletion of stocks of red drum, red snapper and shrimp, as well as destroying nearly 200 billion zooplankton and 2.5 billion fish eggs and larvae.
"Although quantification of the impact of removing billions of eggs and larvae is not possible for most species, consideration of basic ecological principles suggests that facility operation would adversely affect fishery populations and the food webs that sustain marine life in the Gulf of Mexico," the NOAA report said.
While the Coast Guard does require LNG terminal operators monitor the impacts, NOAA pointed out there's nothing in the existing regulations that force them to do anything about it if the impact on fish stocks is found to be too high.
Darryl Malek-Wiley said the larger issue is that while individual companies commission environmental impact studies for the permit applications, federal regulators aren't looking at the cumulative impact of having 13 LNG terminals using the open-rack system.
"We're not anti-LNG," he said, lamenting the lack of uniform, specific information gears the process toward "an uninformed discussion or debate about the impact of these facilites on the Gulf."
Aaron Viles, fisheries campaign director with the Gulf Restoration Network, said he doesn't want the state to repeat sins of the past, when the oil and gas exploration industry carved up Louisiana wetlands, hastening coastal erosion.
"I hope we've learned a lesson about rushing into energy development," he said.
The approval for any terminal at least three miles offshore comes from the U.S. Coast Guard and the U.S. Maritime Administration, while any onshore terminal is handled by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, said Doug Blakemore, waterways management coordinator with the Coast Guard's 8th District office in New Orleans.
Blakemore said the Coast Guard handles the safety and environmental end of the permitting process, including the measurement of environmental impacts.
While he agreed there is no concerted effort to look at the cumulative impact of a number of open-rack systems operating in the Gulf, he said the Coast Guard takes weighing the environmental impact seriously.
He said the Coast Guard is working with the NOAA to come up with a specific criteria that companies would have to satisfy to obtain a permit.
"It's important for the government to let industry know what the standards are," he said.
Blakemore referred questions about what this new criteria could include to NOAA, though repeated attempts by The Advocate to speak with an administration scientist were not accommodated.
NOAA spokeswoman Connie Barkley said the appropriate contact was traveling and attending meetings and provided the NOAA report, saying it sums up the administration's position.
Malik-Wiley said the Sierra Club and the Gulf Restoration Network have talked with the state Department of Wildlife and Fisheries, which showed interest in monitoring the debate.
Unfortunately, Viles said, other than imploring the Coast Guard to make changes, there is little the state can do if it shares the concerns.
Viles said companies pushing for LNG development haven't pushed the open-rack system in other parts of the country and said he couldn't help wondering if the industry feels the Gulf region will be more lenient.
|
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
large
Topic Locked
