In the past month, both the Gloucester Daily
Times and the Boston Globe have informed the
public that Excelerate Energy, Limited Partnership,
a one -year-old energy company, is proposing
to build an unloading facility for liquefied
natural gas (LNG) in offshore waters. The facility
they are proposing will be the first of its
kind in the world. The company asserts that
this facility will have a minimal effect on
the underwater ecosystem fishermen depend on
and will present no danger to the public-at-large.
As President of the Gloucester Fishermen’s
Wives Association, my question is, “How
do they know?” Especially, given that
they have very little experience and no track
record with this kind of facility.
There are reasons why the public needs to oppose
the building of such a facility so close to
human populations and in historically productive
fishing grounds.
The first
reason to oppose this project is safety.
If LNG tanks rupture over water from collisions,
negligence or terrorism, the super-cooled liquid
methane rapidly heats to water temperature and
turns into a gas. The gas quickly expands over
600 times and forms a vapor cloud. Sources have
reported that the Coast Guard modeling has shown
that an ignitable vapor cloud could spread more
than 25 miles. According to the 2002 guide for
building offshore LNG terminals almost anything
could serve as an ignition source at this point
including vessels, electrical equipment, mobile
phones, cameras, static electricity and lightning.
The only offshore LNG facility in the world
is scheduled to go into operation next year
offshore Louisiana and it is positioned more
than 110 miles off the coast and away from populations.
In California, objections have been raised to
LNG facilities offshore which according to one
estimate could put 70,000 people at risk. Massachusetts
should not dismiss these safety concerns simply
based on assurances from the developers. The
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission has announced
that it will hold off approving any new LNG
projects until its LNG Safety Report comes out,
probably by the end of the year.
The second
reason this project
should be opposed is that it will become a major
disruption to critical fishing grounds near
Stellwagen Bank. The area that Excelerate Energy
wants to establish this unloading facility in
is only 10 miles from Gloucester, in an 800
sq mile area (30 by 27-miles) on Stellwagen
Bank known as Block 125. Both commercial and
recreational fishing, as well as lobstering,
takes place here. For centuries, this area has
been one of the most productive fishing grounds
for our fishermen on Stellwagen Bank. Already
there is talk of vessel exclusion zones of one
to three miles around the LNG tankers when they
are unloading at either of the two unloading
buoys. When vessel traffic becomes congested
with additional tankers waiting to unload, will
fishing vessels be required to leave the entire
area?
Since the passage of the Magnuson-Stevens Act,
the number of days that commercial fishermen
can fish has been reduced dramatically and fishing
grounds have been closed for part of the year
in order to protect both the fish and the ocean
habitat. On Stellwagen Bank, for the last seven
years, Block 125 has been closed to fishing
for seven months of the year in order to preserve
the integrity of fish stocks. At present, it
is closed four months of the year to protect
spawning fish and because it has been designated
an essential fish habitat. If this project goes
forward, fishermen will no longer be able to
fish there at all and the conservation efforts
and fishing industry sacrifices that have taken
place over the last 3 decades by fishing communities
will have been for nothing.
Also, the proposed facility in Block 125 is
one mile from the Stellwagen Bank National Marine
Sanctuary. In 1986, both commercial and recreational
fishing industry advocates lobbied to protect
Stellwagen Bank by having part of it declared
a Marine Sanctuary. This facility will be located
right next door! The LNG tankers that will be
unloading nearly 365 days of the year will be
one thousand feet long or the equivalent of
more than three football fields. The Gloucester
fishing fleet is made up of small boats 30ft
to 60 ft in length most of which fish primarily
on or near Stellwagen Bank. How will they be
protected from being split down the middle in
good or bad weather by these enormous tankers?
The tankers will not even know that they hit
them.
The third reason to oppose this project is that
the pipeline construction will disrupt the ecosystem.
Lobstermen have already seen the guarantees
of minimal impacts from the Hubline project
vanish when construction fell behind schedule.
Problems were encountered on the seafloor which
were not anticipated by the companies. This
will almost certainly happen again if they are
allowed to move forward on this gas pipeline.
Is it not ironic that fishing vessels, such
as draggers and scallopers, are constantly accused
of destroying the ocean bottom with their fishing
gear but trenching a path large enough to bury
11.5 miles of pipeline on the ocean bottom is
not considered destructive of the habitat?
Is it not ironic that lobstermen and gillnetters
must bring up their pots or nets if a whale
is spotted so the whales don’t get caught
in them but LNG tankers can travel freely throughout
areas where whales feed with no thought for
the possible impact of these huge tankers on
the whale population?
Is it not ironic that commercial fishermen must
get permission each day from NOAA to use the
fishing grounds and can be denied access to
them but multimillionaires who have the resources
can propose such a project with no thought given
to the preservation of the ocean as a resource,
the possible danger to local communities, or
the destruction of people’s livelihoods?
In conclusion, fish are a renewable resource
that with proper attention can be there forever.
In recent years, the commercial fishing industry
has been reduced drastically in order to
preserve the Atlantic Ocean for future generations.
Natural gas is a finite resource and will
someday be depleted leaving only debris and
contamination in its wake.
It is our responsibility to supply the nation
and the world with fish for food, so it is our
responsibility to protect the ocean that gives
us that food and to remember that it is a renewable
and fragile resource. This is why the Gloucester
Fishermen’s Wives Association invites
all in the community to join with us in opposing
this project.
For more information, please refer to :
FAQs regarding
Liquid Natural Gas facilities (LNGs)
Please click the links below for more information
on this project. You may also print
out and circulate a petition to Stop the Proposed
LNG Terminal for the Waters off Gloucester Harbor.
From the Gloucester
Daily Times:
1st
Offshore Terminal Now Operating
LNG says "it's
safe!"
From Associated
Press:
LNG
Sites Divide Coastal Regions
