LNG 
|
|
Fri Aug 06, 2010 at 06:33:20 PM EDT
|
|
Last week, partly due to the Gulf oil spill, one of the 3 companies' proposing Liquefied Natural Gas ports off the Jersey Shore, withdrew their application, Star Ledger coverage here
In June, Perth Amboy passed a resolution opposing a proposal from Liberty Natural Gas to run 36" pipelines, buried 3 feed deep, by 2 schools, commuter rail lines, residential developments and oil tank farms! The Home News got a couple of good quotes:
"It's right through the heart of the city," said Michael Keller, the city's director of economic and community development. "Someday something will happen"...
The majority of the line would parallel existing transportation and pipeline corridors and also would connect with existing natural gas infrastructure. Keller said the new pipeline off Asbury Park would go around Sandy Hook through the Raritan Bay before coming ashore in Perth Amboy, along railroad tracks at an old junkyard adjacent to the Robert N. Wilentz Elementary School on Second Street. He said the natural gas would travel through a 36-inch pipeline buried 3 feet below ground past the city's train station, Hidden Village housing development, Edward J. Patten Elementary School and Harbortown housing development, under the Outerbridge Crossing, past the Kinder Morgan industrial property, and past Chevron, Hess and the northeast redevelopment area.
"Three feet down is ridiculous," said Keller, who also questions if there would be any surveillance of the pipeline. In March 1994, a leak in a 36-inch Texas Eastern natural gas pipeline next to the Durham Wood apartment complex in nearby Edison sent flames shooting into the night sky that were visible from Pennsylvania to New York. Eight apartment buildings were destroyed and many people left homeless. One woman died from a heart attack... [S]aid Perth Amboy Fire Chief David Volk, whose department responded to the Durham Woods explosion. "It's an accident waiting to happen." Volk said with the pipeline only three feet underground the possibility of someone, or even a train derailment, splitting it open is real.
In 2003, a natural-gas leak leveled a three-story building on New Brunswick Avenue in Perth Amboy, Volk said... a gas pipeline through Perth Amboy is a "grave concern," especially since there are many residences near the railroad right-of-way."It's an extreme danger. Why throw gasoline onto a fire? It doesn't make a lot of sense," he said.
Woodbridge responded by staying on the fence.
John Hagerty, Woodbridge spokesman, said the proposed pipeline would follow the New Jersey Turnpike through parts of Sewaren and Woodbridge proper, but would not have an major impact on the township. "Our Township Council is aware of it. We have yet to take a position," Hagerty said.
|
|
There's More...
:: (0
Comments, 274 words in story)
|
|
|
|
Tue Aug 03, 2010 at 02:32:56 PM EDT
|
|
Through working with Food & Water I've seen a couple of victories on the campaign to stop oil and gas companies from setting up off shore LNG (liquefied natural gas) ports off the Jersey Shore and from bringing gas pipelines through Middlesex County, and now there's an opportunity to voice support for a bipartisan resolution opposing LNG of the coast of NJ at an upcoming Joint Senate/Assembly Environmental Committee Hearing on Thursday, August 12th, 9:30 to 2pm at the Toms River Municipal Building, 33 Washington Ave, Toms River.
The resolutions with sponsors and co-sponsors listed are: SR58/AR59
Here's a sampling of some of the issues from the resolution:
A SENATE RESOLUTION opposing the development of liquefied natural gas facilities offshore of New Jersey...
Construction of a LNG facility will devastate important fish habitat, impact endangered, threatened, and protected species, damage seafloor habitat, destroy vast quantities of marine life when ocean water is used to refill huge emptied tankers with billions of gallons of seawater to replace LNG cargos, and create potential exposure to stronger and more frequent hurricanes, nor'easters, and wind and wave risks; and...The proposed LNG facilities will straddle shipping lanes in the New York/New Jersey Harbor region, the busiest port on the East Coast and third busiest in the country, dramatically affecting shipping traffic patterns when tankers approach and depart the facility, interfering with port traffic, and increasing the risk of shipping accidents; and ...
LNG projects will permanently exclude the public from the ocean as vast areas of ocean will be off limits to the public, boaters and fishing vessels;...
This House opposes the development of liquefied natural gas facilities off the New Jersey coast, and supports increased energy efficiency and energy conservation and the promotion of renewable energy technologies and projects.
Action: Contact these members of the Environmental Commitees that aren't yet co-sponsoring and ask for their support in opposing LNG:
Senator Christopher "Kip" Bateman (R), District 16 908 526-360 senbateman@njleg.org
Assemblywoman Denise Coyle (R), District 16 908 218-4059
aswcoyle@njleg.org
Assemblyman Charles Mainor (D), District 31 201 536-7851 asmmainor@njleg.org
|
|
Discuss
:: (0
Comments)
|
|
|
|
Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 10:38:31 PM EDT
|
On Thursday, NY Governor David Patterson pronounced a project to build the Long Island Sound gas terminal, a LNG transfer barge "behind us" for the state. You may be saying why do I care, but the next option for LNG proponents is certain to stir up plenty of debate in our fair state...ExxonMobil and a private investor group each have proposed liquid natural gas terminals in the Atlantic, east of New Jersey and south of Long Island. Both projects are pending federal approvals. The EnviroPolitics Blog has more on the shift in attention...Despite the potential for appeals, the governor's decision takes the project off the  front burner and shifts attention to New Jersey where two other developers are proposing separate off-shore LNG projects.
The first, "Safe Harbor Energy," comes from Atlantic Sea Island Group (ASIG), a group of private investors who propose to build a man-made island for a LNG facility 13 miles off Long Beach, NY, and 19 miles off Sea Bright, NJ.
The second, "Blue Ocean Energy," is ExxonMobil's plan for a floating LNG terminal located 30 miles off Long Island and 20 miles east of New Jersey. (Video)
It will be interesting to see how the lessons of Broadwater are applied in New Jersey, both by the developers and project Here's my question, thanks to our lack of leadership from some of our Republican Congressmen, will opponents even have the ability to stop it? Dump Mike was on top of the story back in April of 2005...Among the shifts in power: The federal government would gain the power to approve giant liquefied natural gas terminals off the coasts, over state objections. [snip]
Rep. Mike Ferguson, a fellow Republican from nearby New Jersey, supports increasing federal authority, and says states would continue to hold some regulatory oversight of these facilities.
"Federal pre-emption for siting is necessary to ensure the highest safety and security for LNG terminals," Ferguson said. Some states rights advocate he is. But don't think Fergie was alone, he was joined by everyone's favorite Congressman Scott Garrett voting no to keep the amendment in the legislation. Congressmen Smith, Lobiondo and Frelinghuysen joined Democrats voting yes, which would have taken the amendment out of the bill and given states a say in the matter. Dump Mike stayed on the case as the issue progress further that September...Now Congressman Ferguson has, in a largely party line vote, voted against an amendment to the Coast Guard appropriations bill that would require the Coast Guard to "conduct a comprehensive security and safety review of liquefied natural gas facilities." So you can't review, oppose, check for security or safety. Hmmm... EnviroPolitics notes some who may want their voice heard...Opposition likely will be lead by Clean Ocean Action, a Jersey shore environmental organization which hasn't wasted any time is using its web site and a "fact sheet" to educate its members and supporters about the alleged shortcomings of both projects. Here's a little more about LNG (here, here, here and here) for you to help form an opinion, if you don't know where you already stand on the issue. It would seem there are a few issues at play. First you have the many benefits/possible draw backs of LNG. Second, the concept of constructing these LNG barges off the Jersey coast. Finally, you have our right as a state to have a say in this matter has been handed away to the Federal Government with the assistance of Fergie and Garrett. I'm all for the debate taking place, but that third point really annoys me. If you have an opinion or more information on the issue, please share with the group.
|
|
Discuss
:: (3
Comments)
|
|
|
|
Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 04:45:30 PM EDT
|
Assemblyman John Burzichelli and State Senator Steve Sweeney are calling for new negotiations with Delaware to replace the current Interstate Compact that gives New Jersey only limited rights on our side of the Delaware River.
The Supreme Court's divided decision shows that an agreement New Jersey and Delaware struck at a time when much of our modern world would be considered science fiction is showing signs of age" said Burzichelli (D-Gloucester). "Now that the Court has rendered its decision, officials from Delaware and New Jersey need to come together to produce a new, modern agreement between our two states."
"We should not be making 21st Century decisions based on a 103-year-old agreement based in-turn on a three-century-old map," said Sweeney (D-Gloucester). "Let's not push this issue off for yet another century."
You'll recall that the proposed BP LNG terminal is the cause of the dispute. Actually, I agree with Sweeney and Burzichelli.
|
|
Discuss
:: (2
Comments)
|
|
|
|
Sun Nov 25, 2007 at 06:07:08 PM EST
|
|
The elections are over, but there's lots of interesting things going on. You'll have to read through to find out about the title.
Nuclear Reactors
The Associated Press says More cheers than protests in area that could get 4th nuke reactor. The article says people want the jobs. (Indeed, in the anecdotal evidence category, I was struck in the Woodstown election that so many of the candidates work at the nuclear power plants.)
The article does quote Norm Cohen of Unplug Salem:
People would rather get a good-paying job than worry about the effects of long-term radiation on their family,"
|
|
There's More...
:: (1
Comments, 909 words in story)
|
|
|
|
Mon Oct 15, 2007 at 07:28:05 PM EDT
|
Who owns the Delaware River? Does that ownership give the power to regulate? The Supreme Court has decided to weigh in on the issue and the answer will help determine whether a New Jersey plan for a LNG Project will go forward or be stopped by the objections of Delaware. The case was brought to the court after Delaware rejected a permit for a 2,000-foot-long pier. The pier would have been used by tankers to make deliveries to the planned terminal.
Special Master Ralph I. Lancaster said that "as the sovereign owner" of the Delaware River bottom, Delaware can regulate and police developments extending from New Jersey's shoreline.
New Jersey officials said Lancaster got it wrong. The state should have exclusive jurisdiction over its shoreline as well as construction of the pier, Jersey officials said in a legal brief filed with the court.
A century-old agreement between New Jersey and Delaware gives each state authority over piers and other structures on its side of the river, they said. I don't know enough of the details of the case to speculate on how the court will decide. It doesn't appear that NJ is questioning whether we own the river itself, but whether we have the right to regulate the structures along our shoreline based on the orginal agreement between states. I would imagine a case like this would have large ramifications across the country with many of the nation's shared waterways. The Justices are scheduled to hear arguments on November 27, so stay tuned.Update: It was pointed out in the comments that our border with Delaware is the only example of one state's sovereignty going all the way to another's shore.
|
|
Discuss
:: (6
Comments)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mon Sep 04, 2006 at 08:23:34 PM EDT
|
(This is great! It's exactly the type of thing a Blue Journalist would do. - promoted by jmelli)
Since no one has volunteered to summarize the news for Salem County yet, I thought I'd go ahead and do it. And I'm glad I did, cause there is some good stuff here. We're rural South Jersey part of the state, Exit 1 on the Turnpike! Most of this news is from Today's Sunbeam.
|
|
There's More...
:: (1
Comments, 519 words in story)
|
|
|
|
Fri Jul 28, 2006 at 11:07:30 AM EDT
|
|
You don't have to fill up your gas tank to feel the effects of America's dependence on oil. Just take a deep breath and cough it out. A good part of that coughing is to get rid of diesel soot - and you can find out how much diesel soot you are exposed to here. Hudson County, not surprisingly, ranks first in the state for diesel soot exposure.
Cough, cough.
But it doesn't have to be this way. One alternative to diesel fuel is LNG (Liquified Natural Gas). In case you didn't know, there's a proposal to build a LNG platfor 19 miles off the coast of Monmouth County. While the LNG facility wouldn't be of immediate help to anyone in NJ (it will supply the Long Island Power Authority), it provides us an opportunity to begin discussing the advantages - and drawbacks - of using LNG in New Jersey.
|
|
There's More...
:: (11
Comments, 891 words in story)
|
|
|
|
|
| Featured Stories |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
