Offshore LNG Port Proposed for NE of Port Everglades

[Uncle Buck]

I just received this e-mail notice from the Billfish Foundation. As far as I can tell, it would have a direct impact on the swordfishing grounds that I normally visit. The offshore port would be in approximately 900-1000ft of water, and have a 24hr patrolled Homeland Security vessel exclusion area around it. Not sure how far it would be, but even a 1 mile radius would encroach on the swordfishing grounds. Any thoughts on this topic?

Here's the e-mail...

ANGLER PUBLIC COMMENT SOUGHT ON LIQUID NATURAL GAS PORT OFF FORT LAUDERDALE

WHEN & WHERE: *Wednesday - 12/06/06
5:00 p.m. - 6:00 p.m. - Open House Discussion
6:30 p.m. - 8:30 p.m. - Public Comment Period
Fort Lauderdale Marriott North
6500 North Andrews Avenue
Fort Lauderdale, Florida *33309
For directions contact hotel at:*(954) 771-0440 or
http://marriott.com/property/propertypage/FLLCC.

*WHY ATTEND?: The United States Coast Guard (USCG) and the Maritime Administration (MARAD) will prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to evaluate the potential impact of the application for a deepwater liquid natural gas port 8 to 10 miles off Fort Lauderdale, northeast of Port Everglades in 800 to 950 feet of water. *Calypso LNG, LLC proposes to own, construct, and operate the port.
*
If you fish out of Fort Lauderdale, we encourage you to learn more about this project. Your attendance and comments will influence what issues are addressed in the USCG and MARAD decision process. These include impacts on fisheries, coral reefs, access, public safety, water quality, and much more.

WHAT IS A DEEP WATER PORT? The “Calypso” project is designed to provide natural gas through transshipment to south Florida’s growing population through a permanently moored unloading buoy system with two submersible buoys separated by a distance of approximately three miles.

The major components of the deepwater port would consist of two unloading buoy systems, eight mooring lines consisting of wire rope and chain connecting to anchor points on the seabed, eight suction pile anchors points, and a natural gas flow line. The flow line would transport natural gas from the buoy system to an existing gas transmission pipeline. Two transport and regasification vessels would be present at the buoy system port at all times delivering on average 800 million cubic feet of natural gas per day. Vessels would take 4 to 8 days to unload with an estimate of approximately 120 vessel visits per year. A patrol vessel will be present 24 hours a day to keep vessels away from the Safety and Homeland Security Exclusion Zone around the offshore port. Construction is expected to take 3 years, with a startup in 2010. The port is expected to have an operating life of approximately 25 years.

Reported benefits include a new source of energy, reliable supply of energy after hurricanes and an aid in alleviating gas transmission bottlenecks.

Potential negatives include the loss of access to fishing grounds due to designated exclusion zones (recreational and commercial), entrapment of fish and shellfish on vessel intakes when taking in cooling waters (NOTE - this is a closed system so intake would be for ships), temporary or permanent degradation of habitat*due to construction of the terminal, possible fish mortality from unintended spills of liquefied natural gas or other water quality concerns due to use of seawater for engine cooling, and an increase in cost of time and fuel for vessels to divert around exclusion areas.

LEARN MORE:
To view detailed information visit: *http://dms.dot.gov *(Docket #: USC-2006-26009)
*
Questions about License Application Process?*Contact:
Ms. Mary Jager, U.S., U.S. Coast Guard
(202) 372-1454 or Mary.K.Jager@uscg.mil

Question about Environmental Processes?*Contact:
Mr. Brad McKitrick, U.S. Coast Guard
(202) 372-1443 or Bradley.K.McKitrick@uscg.mil
*
Questions Regarding the Applicant?*Contact:
Suez Energy International
http://www.calypsopipeline.com/ or write Nancy Beaty at info@calypsopipeline.com.
When referencing this project the following information should be used:
TITLE:Calypso Liquefied Natural Gas Deepwater Port License Application
REF. #:***********USCG-2006-26009

[tabasco]

UB,
got the same notice. I didn't see any real position on this from TBF?
I would be interested in if anybody else has experience with one of these terminals and how big an area will be 'off limits'? tom

[CJDcatch22]

This sounds bad - real close to the sword grounds. Obviously we need to look into it. I'm going to the meeting.

[quack quack]

This thing is very bad.The closed system coolent is very toxic a leak could posion the stream from FL all the way up the East coast Plus the ship coolers will be sucking up all the baby fish in the stream like dolphin,sails,BM,tuna,and swordfish
not to mention the closed area around it.Just say no to this thing.

[Nightfighter]

That would suck for us. Imagine all the tankers running through our drifts. We would have to be pull everything up on a regular basis, just to get out of their way.
They should set it in 600ft, out of our way, but even then, we would be still scrambling to get out of the way of the tankers.
I don't like it.

[Uncle Buck]

Environmental issues concerning water quality are certainly important, but I wouldn't be so concerned about the fishing impacts if they were locating the site in shallower water. What's the reason for going 10 miles out? Seems logical that a lot of $$$ would be saved if it were located 4 or 5 miles out in water 1/2 the depth. Plus, every inch of pipe is another inch that could leak.

[Sword Donkey]

Bullsh*t! I can't believe that they would allow this. A lot of fisherman, including myself, are going to be pissed off. One more thing to think about is they wouldn't even let you fish around it for tunas and such.

[Flatsfish B]

Originally Posted by Uncle Buck

Environmental issues concerning water quality are certainly important, but I wouldn't be so concerned about the fishing impacts if they were locating the site in shallower water. What's the reason for going 10 miles out? Seems logical that a lot of $$$ would be saved if it were located 4 or 5 miles out in water 1/2 the depth. Plus, every inch of pipe is another inch that could leak.

They probably want to put it farther off land so it isn't as visible for the people on Land to look at in there high rises. But they probably have a depth limit as well.

[Uncle Buck]

Since there is minimal surface structure associated with this type of LNG offloading, the buoys would be nearly invisible just a few miles off land. Only the tankers themselves would be visible... and when can you NOT see a tanker off PE?

[Shark Tagger]

I saw skip posted this in teh conservation section. I can't belive this would be allowed!

[reeltherapy]

Here's my .02. This has far more to lose than to gain. There's not a right way nor a right reason to do a wrong thing. This would be the wrong thing to do.

ReelT

[DIRTYFOOT2]

This is a grave situation . Absolutely criminal to construct such a monstrosity . Uneccesary as well. Just another way for the mega wealthy fossil fuel Barons to Rake in the dough. We need a united war .The press and legislator you can contact should be made aware of how adversly this could affect fishing and the entire tourism industry, as well as the apocoliptic environmental consequences. Were under attack as fisherman on many fronts right now . We have got too make a huge stink. Otherwise there will be no places left for us to teach our children about the joys of . Complacency on our part will be disastrous

[reefling]

by all means try to stop it but DO NOT BE UGLY you will alianate yourself and all will be over! good luck

reefling