| ||||||||
| ||||||||
| The Reasons & Rational Why to Reject to Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) Facilities The purpose of this paper is to clearly state the range of well conceived and credible arguments against LNG off the coast of Monmouth Count, NJ, and their potential impacts to the Bayshore region of Monmouth and Middlesex counties, New Jersey. BAYSHORE REGIONAL WATERSHED COUNCIL (BRWC) The Reasons & Rational Why to Reject to Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) Facilities off the Coast of Monmouth County, New Jersey Drafted by Joe Reynolds BRWC Co-chair December 23, 2008
Introduction Since 2000, the Bayshore Regional Watershed Council (BRWC) has been working to improve the physical environment in the Bayshore region of Middlesex and Monmouth counties, New Jersey. The BRWC is made up of volunteers, including citizens, scientists, environmental commissioners, and municipal officials from a variety of Bayshore communities, from Old Bridge Township eastward to the Borough of Highlands. The Bayshore region consists of all or part of the following 11 municipalities in Monmouth County: Aberdeen, Atlantic Highlands, Hazlet, Highlands, Holmdel, Keansburg, Keyport, Marlboro, Matawan, Middletown and Union Beach. Portions of three municipalities in Middlesex County are also included in this region. They are Old Bridge Township, Sayreville, and South Amboy. The BRWC was created in 2000 under the watershed planning initiative of Monmouth County and New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP). The BRWC is dedicated to the restoration, protection, sustainable use, and enjoyment of Raritan Bay – Sandy Hook Bay, and the watershed region. On Thursday, December 11, 2008, members of the BRWC voted unanimously to reject the three (3) Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) proposals slated for the coastline of Monmouth County, New Jersey. The three LNG offshore facility proposals are for a man-made island (Atlantic Sea Island Group), a moored floating platform (Blue Ocean Energy), and four turret buoy importation terminals anchored to the seafloor (Liberty Natural Gas). The purpose of this paper is to clearly state the range of well conceived and credible arguments against LNG off the coast of Monmouth Count, NJ, and their potential impacts to the Bayshore region of Monmouth and Middlesex counties, New Jersey. In short, the case for LNG almost entirely rests on the false premise that importing natural gas in a liquefied state would somehow displace dirtier coal. Yet, there is no evidence that this would be the case. To the contrary, LNG almost certainly would have a bigger dampening effect on solar and wind power investments, and worse still, negative impacts to local water quality, marine life, and to the social and economic quality of life in the Bayshore region. The paper disputes the claim that LNG is needed as a potential future source of energy in New Jersey, and categorizes the augment into four (4) sections: 1) background, 2) grounds against LNG facilities, 3) challenges as to why LNG is even needed, and 4) where Monmouth County and the State of New Jersey might lend its support. Background To date, most Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) regasification facilities in the United States have been built onshore. However, growing public concern about safety from gas explosions, increased ship traffic, terrorist attacks, and other fears have caused the energy industry to look for remote sites for such facilities. One current alternative is to build the regasification facility offshore. Due to its location to New York State (one of the largest consumers of natural gas in the United States), various offshore terminals with different configurations and combinations have been proposed off the coast of Monmouth County, New Jersey. Most of these offshore designs are based on large structures in the water. An offshore regasification terminal typically includes a large barge-like structure with storage tanks and a way for a vessel to approach, berth and offload its cargo. In brief, here is a review of the three (3) proposed LNG projects that are seeking state and federal approval to be located off the coast of Monmouth County, New Jersey. Each one of the three proposed offshore terminal projects is being made by a separate business. Each one has a very different design and employs unique technical devices in their construction of an LNG facility. Atlantic Sea Island Group The Atlantic Sea Island Group (ASIG) has proposed building a $2 billion, 63-acre island (about the size of 12 football fields) to be used as a port facility for the mass conversion of liquefied natural gas to natural gas. The proposal is seeking U.S. Coast Guard approval, which could come by the end of 2009. Construction could begin six months after being approved by state and federal authorities. The man-made island would be located about 19 miles off the coast of Sea Bright, NJ and 13 miles from Long Beach, NY. Sea-going vessels would routinely bring LNG to the island and the island would house a LNG storage facility, terminal, and industrial complex. LNG would then be transported via a new sub-sea ocean pipeline into New Jersey, where a majority of the natural gas would then be distributed to the State of New York. OPINION: ASIG is a private investment group with little to no experience in offshore LNG operations or offshore construction of LNG facilities. Thus, this plan should be rejected outright, as the public waters off the coast of the environmentally and economically important Jersey Shore should not be used as an experimental “guinea pig” project for a private corporation. ExxonMobil The next proposal scheduled to be submitted for review in 2009 is from ExxonMobil, the largest multinational corporation in the world. ExxonMobil wishes also to create an experimental project. Plans call for a floating LNG port in the Atlantic Ocean, about 20 miles off the Manasquan Inlet. Their plan calls for placing a sizeable barge in the sea that would be anchored to the sea floor. Outsized sea vessels would routinely bring LNG to the barge, where it would be stored and transported via a new sub-sea ocean and estuarine pipeline into New Jersey, where most of the natural gas would then be distributed to the State of New York. OPINION: A LNG barge idea is an experimental and untried technology in the United States. This is the type of technology that was recently rejected by both governors of New York and Connecticut; and also by the governor of California due to its unproven technology and threats to air quality and local marine life. Needless to say, the State of New Jersey and Monmouth County should also reject this plan. Liberty Natural Gas The third proposal up for review is from Excalibur Energy and entitled, “Liberty Natural Gas.” Excalibur Energy is a new energy conglomerate made up of Canadian Superior Energy Inc. and Global LNG, Inc. Their plan is also experimental. It requires no ocean port facilities such as a floating terminal or a man-made island. Instead, the corporation wishes to place in the Atlantic Ocean four (4) LNG turret buoy importation terminals anchored to the seafloor about 16 miles off of Asbury Park. This new technology involves heating the LNG back to a gas on-board a large tanker as opposed to having to build a permanent facility to reheat the LNG. The tankers themselves would provide LNG storage until all of a vessel's contents had been turned back to a gas. The gas would then be sent into a new deepwater 36” ocean and estuarine pipeline that would be about 50 miles long into New Jersey, where most of the natural gas would then be distributed to the State of New York. A company called Exmar has developed this evolving technology that allows for LNG to be re-gasified onboard specially built LNG tankers in order to be delivered directly into a pipeline. OPINION: Supporting this LNG facility would promote another relatively new form of technology, the submerged turret buoy technology, which has not been tested long-term offshore in the United States. It would also support a new, large-scale pipeline into local ocean and bay waters, near communities along Sandy Hook Bay and Raritan Bay. This would place a heavy burden on the fragile ocean ecosystem and sensitive bay ecosystem for years to come. This LNG plan would negatively impact the sea floor, and the water quality in the Atlantic Ocean, Sandy Hook Bay, and Raritan Bay. The plan would also negatively impact on an economic scale the boating & tourism industry along Sandy Hook Bay & Raritan Bay, and the commercial and recreational fishing industry in Monmouth County. Grounds against LNG facilities off the coast of Monmouth County After careful consideration of the three (3) LNG proposals and reviewing their individual plans on-line, I have concluded that I cannot, in good faith support the effort to build any liquefied natural gas terminals off the coast of Monmouth County, New Jersey. I outright reject LNG facilities off the coast of New Jersey. The reasons for my rational are as follows: 1. Reliance on Fossil Fuels LNG will keep the NY-NJ region dependent on foreign fossil fuels. If any of the three LNG projects are allowed to go forward, then the NY-NJ region will all of sudden remain dependent on foreign natural gas for at least the next 20 to 30 years just as we are now dependent on foreign oil. LNG does not come from the United States. Private corporations transport this fossil fuel to the United States via tanker ships from different foreign countries, quite a few with unstable governments that have violent pasts, or a history of not respecting basic human rights or safeguarding the environment. In 2006, LNG imports to the United States were from a mix of mainly suspect countries including Trinidad, Tobago, Egypt, Nigeria, Algeria, and Russia. Moreover, tankers could import gas from other Atlantic Basin regions and countries, such as western Africa and Venezuela. Iran too has some of the world’s largest reserves. What are the prospects then for a LNG cartel, an organization of natural gas exporting countries, to be created in the near future by potential suppliers - Russia, Algeria, Libya, Iran, Nigeria, and Qatar, to fix prices towards consuming nations just as OPEC currently does with oil? LNG ensures continued international conflicts spurred on by the demand for foreign fossil fuels. LNG will undercut the renewable energy industry in New Jersey. LNG imports would hurt conservation and renewable energy efforts by displacing renewable energy funds and government subsidies in New Jersey in order to maintain the infrastructure and low prices for LNG. An LNG project does not guarantee low-cost gas to New Jersey. LNG costs significantly more than domestically produced gas since there is a large cost of liquefying, shipping, and then re-gasifying LNG. This could mean increased prices for residential and business customers without government subsidies. Renewable energy technology is ready to go now, but it isn’t getting the government subsidies currently provided to fossil fuels. For example, the federal government invested $644 billion (in 2003 dollars) in efforts to promote and support energy development of natural gas and petroleum between 1950 and 2003 (http://www.issues.org/22.3/realnumbers.html). Moreover, LNG externalizes the environmental costs and impacts of fossil fuel extraction to other countries where it is associated with environmental and human rights violations. Right now, Exxon is extracting oil and gas from Saghalien, an island in the North Pacific, a pristine marine environment that is home to the critically endangered Western Pacific Gray Whale (http://www.pacificenvironment.org/article.php?id=187), and a gas project in Peru, entitled, “Peru's Camisea Gas Project , is opening up one of the most pristine rainforest valleys in the Amazon, threatening the livelihoods of 22 indigenous communities and cutting through an Amazon biodiversity hotspot in order to lay two natural gas pipelines to the Peruvian coast in order to transport LNG via ship to other countries (http://www.amazonwatch.org/amazon/PE/camisea/). 2. Safety Since LNG is a foreign gas, it has a different molecular composition than our domestic brand of natural gas. The difference may be slight, but it can be more dangerous. For example, recent reports in the Washington Post have revealed that homes in Maryland have exploded in 2003-2004 due to new and expanded use of Liquefied Natural Gas from importation facilities in the Chesapeake Bay region. A government study found that differences in the imported liquefied natural gas that a local gas utility began using in August 2003 were drying the rubber seals of aging metal couplings that link sections of gas pipe. The changes in gas composition caused couplings to leak and cause explosions. The Washington Post further stated that the frequency of leaks began to soar in late 2003, soon after the gas company started supplying the community with imported gas, mainly from Trinidad, brought in by tankers through Dominion's Cove Point liquefied natural gas terminal in Calvert County. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/06/AR2005070602284.html Do we really want to expose our historic and long-standing communities to dangers of pipeline leaks and explosions from imported LNG? Moreover, Liquefied Natural Gas is natural gas (primarily methane, CH4) that has been cooled to minus 260 degrees Fahrenheit, the point at which gas condenses to a liquid. The super-cooled natural gas is to be taken from oceangoing tankers, warmed and then pumped into the pipeline network. Yet this whole process is risky and potentially unsafe. A February 12, 2004 article in the New York Times illustrates why energy companies are quickly seeking to located LNG facilities offshore. On January 19, 2004, an explosion at the Skikda port LNG plant destroyed a large part of the Algerian port, killing 30 people and injuring 70 more. The Algerian disaster has bolstered arguments against LNG terminals that were already under scrutiny by regulators in California, Massachusetts, and Alabama. Closer to home, in 1988, an LNG facility near Boston, MA accidently spilled 30,000 gallons of LNG. As a result, a vapor cloud hung around on site for hours due to the fact that there was no wind. It was pure luck that the gas didn't ignite. Furthermore, in a speech recently delivered to the Houston Forum, Lord Levene, Chairman of the insurer Lloyd's of London, the British natural gas port insurer and the world’s second-largest commercial insurer, stated the following: “Gas carriers … whether at sea or in ports, make obvious targets. Specialists reckon that a terrorist attack on a LNG tanker would have the force of a small nuclear explosion. And it's not just the vessels, but the terminals and the whole infrastructure which are at risk from terrorism.” 3. Negative impacts from new natural gas pipeline. The possible impacts from installing a new sub-sea pipeline at the bottom of the ocean and bay cannot be overlooked. An LNG offshore facility would transport the gas into a new deepwater 36” pipeline that would be about 50 miles long. To lay this new pipeline, the seafloor would be torn up starting with the Atlantic Ocean and going past the tip of Sandy Hook and into Sandy Hook Bay and Raritan Bay; and past various Bayshore communities, such as Atlantic Highlands, Union Beach, and Keyport to reach South Amboy. Then eleven miles of onshore pipeline would carry the foreign gas to an existing industrial corridor in Linden, where the pipeline would interconnect with existing natural gas pipelines, all along the way disrupting coastal wetlands and habitats. A new sub-sea natural gas pipeline would adjoin various Bayshore communities, such as Atlantic Highlands, Middletown Township, Union Beach, and Keyport to reach South Amboy. This new pipeline could potentially endanger those communities and some of the rare marine species found in the aquatic ecosystem, such as Right Whales, Common or Bottlenose dolphins, Harbor Seals, and various bottom dwelling critters of economic importance, such as Blue-Claw Crabs, Hard-shell Clams, Fluke and Winter Flounder.
Above: the proposed location of a new sub-sea pipeline from the ocean into the estuary. Please note that once the pipeline enters into the NY-NJ Harbor, the course of the pipeline follows exclusively into NJ waters relatively close to the coastline of Monmouth and Middlesex counties of New Jersey and not into the waters of New York State. (http://libertynaturalgas.com/map.html) The new LNG pipeline would hold more than 1000 times the pressure of residential gas pipelines. What would happen if there was ever a leak in the pipe from corrosion, metal fatigue, manufacturing defects, or human error? Even a minor leak could create a 'pool fire' or ignitable 'vapor cloud' that is extremely dangerous, threatening life and property. If an LNG company does not install enough shut-off valves then the highly flammable liquid could bubble up to the surface and ignite by the fire of a simple cigarette. Accidents have occurred before with LNG pipelines: In 2005, a 28-inch LNG underground pipeline exploded in Nigeria and the resulting fire engulfed an estimated 27 square kilometers. In 2004, a pipeline carrying natural gas from the Belgian port of Zeebrugge to northern France exploded, resulting in 23 known fatalities. The incident was caused due to a contractor accidentally damaging the pipe. In October 1979, a natural gas leak at Cove Point, Maryland caused an explosion killing one plant employee and seriously injuring another and causing about $3 million in damages. 4. Impacts to local maritime economies in Monmouth County New Jersey ranks second only to Florida in the nation for saltwater recreational fishing activity, with many commercial fishing boats in Monmouth County offering estuarine and deep sea recreational fishing. In addition, the Belford Seafood Co-op is one of five major commercial fishing ports on New Jersey's coastline that requires vast deep sea areas of the Atlantic Ocean to offer high quality local seafood to community markets. The other four major commercial fishing ports in New Jersey include Point Pleasant, Barnegat Light, Atlantic City, and Cape May. There are also a number of smaller ports on Delaware, Barnegat and Raritan bays. What’s more, there are at least 100 people who make a living solely of harvesting shellfish and crabs in Raritan and Sandy Hook Bays. Yet, due to the inherent risks of gas explosions, terrorist attacks, and other potential safety hazards, the federal government will set exclusion zones around both LNG terminals and LNG tankers, which will greatly limit the use of public ocean and estuarine waters. The exclusion zone varies with each project. For example, the Northeast Gateway LNG turret buoy system off of Boston the exclusion area was around 1,500 yards; and in a 360-degree rotation around a tanker. In other cases, the federal government found that a safety zone for the Broadwater project in Long Island Sound would extend about 2.3 miles in front of a tanker and about 1.2 miles behind the tanker; and the width extending about 1,560 yards. These tankers are specially designed and constructed seagoing vessels that are sizeable. Each tanker would be about 85 feet wide and 750 feet long, which is about two-and-half football fields long and bigger than some World War II battleships. These exclusion zones would result in a significant loss of public area to both recreational and commercial fisherman, recreational boaters and divers, and to commercial ship traffic that would have no access to these waters occupied by a LNG project. In some cases, these proposed exclusions zones are located in prime fishing or driving zones. Important commercial fishing areas, such as the Belford Seafood Co-op in Middletown Township, and Co-op Seafood in Pt. Pleasant Beach, depend on easy and free access to ocean waters for their continued economic existence. In addition, many commercial recreational fishing boats that depart marinas from Atlantic Highlands, Keyport, Sea Bright, Belmar, and Brielle depend on large open areas of the ocean and bay for their economic existence. Additionally, the Liberty Natural Gas project requires underwater anchor chains and anchors to lift and descend the buoys for each shipment. Such operations at the Northeast Gateway terminal off Boston, which has two turret buoys, affects up-to 38 acres. Once in place, that area has experienced a long-term reduction in benthic productivity. Monmouth County is home to many small recreational fishing boat owners that could be affected from limited access to traditional fishing grounds if proposals for LNG facilities go forward. A LNG facility would threaten extremely rich fishing grounds, and turn an LNG area into an industrial park, increasing ship traffic, oil spills from tankers, and other threats to the northern Jersey Shore. 6. LNG is Not Good for the Environment LNG is not a clean energy source and it would not help to mitigate New Jersey’s share of the global warming crisis. While it’s true that natural gas power plants emit about half as much carbon dioxide as coal plants, the natural gas combustion required to produce and transport LNG to facilities adds 20 to 40 percent more carbon dioxide than burning natural gas alone. This includes extracting the gas from the earth, processing the gas to meet U.S. standards, transporting it through pipelines, chilling it and minus 260 degrees, shipping it overseas, and then converting it back to natural gas. A single LNG project typically emits approximately 25,000,000 U.S. tons per year of greenhouse gas emissions, a significant increase over emissions from domestic gas production which does not require liquefaction, shipment and regasification of supplies prior to consumption. Moreover, LNG increases air pollution since foreign LNG has more contaminants, such as nitrogen oxide and other pollutants that are known to cause asthma and other respiratory ailments, than domestic natural gas does and therefore produces more air pollution whether it is being burned by industry, power plants or in your household heater. In the end, LNG (methane) is a source of greenhouse gasses, and investing in LNG infrastructure increases our dependence on climate changing fossil fuels. Methane is a greenhouse gas that is 23 times more powerful than carbon dioxide, which means it is much more efficient at trapping heat. As a result, this creates a feedback loop where the released methane further raises temperatures, which then releases even more methane from more decaying plants and melting northern permafrost that has trapped tremendous quantities of methane gas for millions of years. LNG increases reliance on environmentally destructive fossil fuels and significantly delays the possibility of moving towards renewable energy sources by creating a costly infrastructure for LNG. The process to convert and transport LNG is energy intensive and still emits global warming emissions. 7. LNG is Not Good for Marine Wildlife The three LNG proposals call to install facilities in one of the nation’s richest and most productive marine ecosystems, - the Jersey Shore. LNG facilities or tankers would intake millions of gallons of seawater to cool its generators, and discharge water more than 28.3 degrees Fahrenheit hotter than ambient ocean temperatures. These billions of gallons per year of intake and thermal waste would cause serious harm to the surrounding ecosystem, killing zooplankton and small fish critical to the survival of marine mammals and fisheries. Moreover, construction of gas pipelines in the water could cause harmful spills of drilling fluids and even contaminated sediments into the near shore marine environment. Vessel traffic from at an LNG facility also increases the likelihood of hazardous diesel, oil, or sewage spills. According to marine mammal experts, endangered Right Whales, Humpback Whales Blue Whales, and Fin Whales migrate north and south from their feeding areas in New England and Canada to their calving areas in warmer southern waters. Many marine mammals and sea turtles commonly feed and travel through the three (3) proposed LNG project sites. There is likelihood then that a whale or another marine mammal could become injured and die from a collision with a large LNG tanker. In addition, these endangered marine mammals could be threatened with asphyxiation and burns from surface fires in the event of a significant LNG release and suffer from increased sickness from water pollution. Moreover, noise from the large tankers, the facility and pipeline construction will be audible above and underwater for miles around these activities. The underwater noise could harm The potentially negative environmental impact of the construction of LNG facilities argues against having facilities along the Jersey Shore. Important marine resources, like marine mammals, fish, and shellfish habitat are at a great risk, as well as impacts to other natural and scenic resources. 8. LNG is not needed! According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, the natural gas market in the United States is currently massively oversupplied. While natural gas demand is expected to increase in the United States over the next 20 years, domestic natural gas supply is also increasing as well as in other nearby places, such as in Mexico and Canada. Thus, there is plenty of domestic natural gas in the Americas. Moreover, LNG imports have decreased in the United States. From January 1 to May 30, 2007 the United States imported an estimated 377 cubic feet of LNG, in total. During the same time period in 2008, imports totaled 139 cubic feet of LNG, further evidence that cheaper indigenous natural gas supplies are abundant in North America. Today, natural gas from imported LNG competes vigorously with pipeline gas in the North American and European markets as well as with other fuels like oil derivatives and coal (for power generation). It seems clear that many of the fossil-fuel based energy companies are trying to gain a major share of the LNG industry. Then drive it into relatively new markets, such as in the United States, and sell it as a “cheap” and “safe” fossil fuel to try to compete with domestic suppliers and the alternative energy market. While LNG importers in the Pacific Basin – Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan – have little or no domestic gas production and no pipeline sources for natural gas imports, there is ample supply of natural gas in North American and no need for LNG imports. Challenges as to why we even need LNG This section provides a rebuke against nine (9) common distortions about LNG and energy use in New Jersey: Distortion 1: Conservation and the use of renewable energy sources will not be sufficient between them to eliminate an increase in the consumption of fossil fuels over the next few decades. Retort: According to the Energy Master Plan, this is not true for New Jersey. In 2005, NJ used 83,000 GWh of electricity and over 600 trillion BTUs of natural gas and heating oil (EMP p. 97). Under the EMP, in 2020 NJ will use 78,300 GWh of electricity and 443 trillion BTUs of natural gas and heating oil (EMP p. 97-98). This is from conservation and efficiency alone. Therefore, “Conservation and efficiency will be sufficient between them to eliminate an increase in the consumption of fossil fuels over the next decade.” Under the EMP, in 2020 NJ will generate 20,490 GWh of the 78,300 GWh from renewables. (This is 30% of 68,300. 68,300 is the amount of energy needed (78,300) after deducting 10,000 GWh of cogeneration, which is planned for 2020.). (EMP p. 68-69). That means NJ will need only 47,810 GWh from fossil and nuclear fuels (78,300 – 20,490). In 2006, NJ generated (in-state) 15,638 GWh from natural gas and 32,568 GWh from nuclear power. That’s 48,206 GWh. Thus, if the goal is to eliminate coal, it is clear that can be accomplished with just increasing conservation, efficiency, and renewables and without increasing fossil or nuclear fuels. This is just following the minimum goals set by the EMP. In addition to reducing fossil fuel use for electricity, we’ll use less natural gas and oil for heating through efficiency and conservation, as noted above. These big gains will occur where NJ uses natural gas the most and during the months its usage peaks. Indeed, the savings are so large the draft EMP (final EMP numbers not available) shows that these BTUs of natural gas can be used to increase electricity and cogeneration production without any historical increase in natural gas consumption overall in the state. Thus, the state could choose to reduce nuclear generation as well. Distortion 2: The generation of electric power using natural gas generates less air pollution (NOx, SOx, particulates) than coal, and generates less greenhouse gasses (GHGs) as well. It is generally beneficial, therefore, to replace coal with natural gas where possible. Retort: Yes, but one must be careful to distinguish between domestic natural gas and more polluted and more costly foreign, LNG-sourced natural gas. Among pollutants, it is particularly important to look at the life-cycle emissions of greenhouse gases since their contribution to global warming is the same even if some are released overseas. Distortion 3: Though the U.S. has abundant supplies of natural gas, its production going forward will rely increasingly on “unconventional" rather than "conventional" means. This will result inevitably in an increase in the price of domestically produced natural gas. Retort: Unconventional natural gas is now being drilled because natural gas prices are now at the level that makes it economical. These prices, which are higher than 20th century natural gas prices, are still below global LNG prices. As a result, LNG terminals are running at 10% capacity. Further, as a 8/24/08 NY Times article (Drilling Boom Revives Hopes for Natural Gas) notes, technology for unconventional drilling has advanced to the point where unconventional natural gas is “pushing down prices.” Distortion 4: The delivery infrastructure of domestically produced natural gas to the NJ area is at capacity during periods of peak demand resulting in price "spikes" at those times. Increase in delivery capacity is costly and entails long delays. Delivery capacity increases cannot therefore be expected to occur soon. Retort: What is the evidence of capacity issues? Even if there are capacity issues, the NJ Energy Master Plan calls for reduce peak demand for natural gas through efficiency and conservation and move savings to the summer for peak electricity (when there’s less natural gas in the pipelines). This strategy is by far the most cost effective and environmentally friendly means of dealing with spikes. Increasing capacity at pipelines is cheaper than building an LNG receiving terminal along with the resulting additional costs of more LNG tankers and of course you still have to build more pipelines. Even if there are capacity issues, the three LNG proposals will only connect to the existing on-shore pipeline system. Thus, they will only displace existing natural gas flows and not increase capacity. Distortion 5: LNG delivered offshore eastern U.S. offers these prospects: (1) Obviating (or at least mitigating) the increase in delivery capacity; (2) providing gas during peak demand periods; (3) Offering an alternative source to consumers of natural gas in the region. The influence of all three of these is toward reducing the average price of natural gas to any user in the region. Retort: How? Peak demand for natural gas in NJ and for many other countries is in the Northern Hemisphere’s winter. This is when LNG is most competitive and thus will ship to foreign destinations to receive higher prices. Moreover, LNG does not lower natural gas prices. Massachusetts has had an LNG facility since the 1970s, just built a new one, and is building a third. It is one of the few facilities used regularly because MA has become dependent upon it instead of investing in domestic energy and domestic infrastructure. MA citizens pay more for natural gas than does NJ. MA residents pay $19.86/thousand cubic ft, NJ residents pay $16.50/thousand cubic ft. Distortion 6: Ships delivering LNG to offshore terminals will take on ballast in the form of seawater after the delivery is made. Inevitably there will be mortality of some or all of the organisms in that water. This same ballasting process occurs with all the ships that leave NY harbor empty. It is a regrettable environmental result of world maritime activity. Retort: LNG tankers are particularly large, up to 1,100 feet in length, and require millions of gallons of ballast water per ship. Further, is it really appropriate to compare this destruction to other means of obtaining energy as opposed to unrelated shipping operations within the NY-NJ Harbor? Domestic natural gas does not require this destruction. Foreign natural gas in the form of LNG does. Conservation, efficiency, and renewable energy also do not require this destruction. Just because others do it, doesn’t make it right and call for an increase, especially if it’s unnecessary. Distortion 7: Addition of offshore LNG terminals undeniably increases industrialization of the oceans. The question is whether the economic advantages of less expensive natural gas and the environmental advantages of burning the least environmentally objectionable of fossil fuels outweigh that. Retort: The economic advantages are unproven and there is no guarantee that LNG will be used to replace coal. Even if it were, LNG’s lifecycle is polluting and will negate most benefits of getting off coal when compared to domestic natural gas (let alone conservation, efficiency, and renewable energy as the NJ Energy Master Plan allows for). Other negatives must be taken into account in the balancing, such as increased reliance on foreign fossil fuels that will divert progress toward renewable energy. Distortion 8: Objectors have pointed out that large exclusion zones around the terminals would interfere with shipping and commercial and sport fishing and impose additional burdens on a U.S. Coast Guard already stretched thin. Supporters acknowledge these objections and accept the restrictions as drawbacks, likening them to similar restrictions around airports, for example, a price we pay for living in a civilized society compared to surviving alone in pristine wilderness. Retort: Again, is it really appropriate to compare this drawback to other means of obtaining energy as opposed to unrelated operations at airports. Domestic natural gas and most renewable sources of energy do not require 500 meter exclusion zones. Further, domestic sources of energy keep money in the country and allow us to set comprehensive environmental standards. Distortion 9: The permitting process for any offshore LNG terminal involves some dozen separate agencies, many charged with some aspect of environmental protection. This fact gives us some comfort that any resulting LNG facility will be designed to prevent an egregious insult to the environment. Retort: The federal government grants permits for nearly all LNG terminals. Are we really satisfied with the environmental concerns, especially on local issues, that go into current review processes conducted by the federal government? Where Monmouth County might lend its support? As New Jersey and Monmouth County move forward on the LNG topic, there is a need to examine data on a variety of issues. Some of the data that should be carefully examined includes: I. Geology II. Water Quality III. Biological Resources IV. Threatened and Endangered Species V. Recreational and Visual Resources VI. Socioeconomics VII. Marine Transportation and onshore traffic VIII. Air Quality And Noise IX. Safety X. Benthic Communities XI. Monitoring program(s) XII. Possible impacts from pipe installation into the Atlantic Ocean, Sandy Hook Bay and Raritan Bay to: • Commercial fishing & shell fishing • Tourism • Wildlife, especially to birds, fish, and benthic species. • Commuter Ferry Service • Local communities from increased Noise & Disturbance XIII. The Cumulative Impacts from project(s) A meticulously review of the above data will show a list of negatives for LNG and will clearly point to the fact that the State of New Jersey needs to be focusing on alternative sources of domestic energy, not on building security and health risks from fossil fuels that could decimate the ocean and bay ecosystems and local economies in Monmouth County. The negatives clearly outweigh the positives. What should be called for from the State of New Jersey are both 1) a smart and comprehensive energy plan that provides financial incentives to meet energy needs by focusing on conservation and a variety of energy alternatives, such as solar, wind, geo-thermal, and tidal power; and 2) a rational and wide-ranging ocean management plan that protects the beauty and bounty of the ocean. Privatizing open waters with fossil fuel project would be fundamentally wrong and serve as a dangerous precedent for industrializing a source of joy and income in Monmouth County that people have spent years and millions of dollars trying to clean up. In this respect, the three LNG proposals off the coast of Monmouth County have failed in their attempts to demonstrate a real energy need requiring the construction of large floating LNG facilities and new sub-sea pipelines near one of our nation’s most precious and environmentally fragile natural resources, - the Jersey Shore. LNG is more about business avarice and profits than a real energy solution. New Jersey’s coastline is one of our greatest public resources and a significant source of revenue for the state. Thus far, behind all the greenwashing, the majority of voices being heard in favor of LNG facilities along the Jersey Shore are the multi-national energy corporations and their special interests groups driving the proposals. The State of New Jersey needs to move forward with a clean and sustainable energy plan that does not negatively impact the Jersey Shore, Sandy Hook Bay, or Raritan Bay.
| ||||||||
 Facilities.html_files/LNGFishermenSm.jpg)
 Facilities.html_files/LNG.jpg)
print
