JCMAN320
December 12th, 2007, 06:48 AM
Natural gas terminal is proposed off Jersey
$1B Exxon site couldn't be seen from shore
http://www.nj.com/hp/135/1212_exxon.jpg
Wednesday, December 12, 2007
BY TOM JOHNSON
Star-Ledger Staff
Exxon Mobil said yesterday it wants to build a $1 billion liquefied natural gas terminal about 20 miles off the New Jersey coast, a project that it says will deliver new fuel to a region where rising demand and scarce supplies have led to spikes in heating and electric bills.
The project, involving a floating natural gas terminal more than 1,100 feet long and 100 feet high, would be anchored to the ocean floor in about 150 feet of water. It would not be visible from shore and would be located away from shipping and fishing lanes as well as recreational areas, the giant energy company said.
The facility, dubbed BlueOcean Energy, would be connected to land via an underwater pipeline able to deliver about 1.2 billion cubic feet of natural gas daily, enough to meet the needs of 5 million residential customers.
The announcement is the fourth in a series of proposals for liquefied natural gas (LNG) terminals in and around New Jersey, including one to be built on an artificial island 19 miles east of Sandy Hook and another along the Delaware River in South Jersey. Exxon said the terminal will be built off the coast of Monmouth County, but did not pinpoint a location.
"There's a need for increased capacity for natural gas in the Northeast," said Damien Gaul, an economist with the U.S. Energy Administration. "The question is how is it going to happen. It is not likely that all these proposals will be built."
LNG is natural gas that has been super-cooled to a liquid state so it can be more easily transported over long distances.
Natural gas is viewed by many, including some environmentalists, as a cleaner and potentially cheaper alternative for generating electricity, particularly if state and federal governments, as expected, impose tough new constraints on power plants that emit greenhouse gases.
Because natural gas is highly combustible, however, LNG facilities have been criticized for posing a safety hazard, including from terrorist attacks. Industry experts note during the past 40 years, LNG ships have delivered more than 45,000 cargoes worldwide without a tank failure.
Exxon, the nation's largest oil and gas company, brings enormous resources to bear on its proposal. Bill Davis, vice president of LNG Market Development, a subsidiary of Exxon, said part of the decision in selecting the New Jersey location was based on where the gas was needed the most and where a terminal could be built in an environmentally sound manner.
Many conservationists are likely to oppose the plan, saying it is part of a general push by the industry to move industrial facilities into ocean waters, where they encounter less resistance than in heavily populated areas.
"It's really the beginning of the age of ocean sprawl," said Tim Dillingham, executive director of the American Littoral Society, citing other proposals to build offshore LNG terminals in Long Island Sound and off Massachusetts. "The bottom line is the public has fought long and hard to clean up the ocean from sewage sludge and industrial waste. We didn't do that to turn over a cleaned-up ocean for industry to profit from."
Rep. Frank Pallone, a Democratic congressman who represents parts of the Jersey Shore, also opposes the project, saying the terminal would be a tremendous environmental burden and "an accident waiting to happen."
Bill Cooper, executive director of the Center for Liquefied Natural Gas, an industry trade group, said the benefit of putting terminals offshore include being remote from populated areas, but the downside is they generally cost twice what it takes to build on-shore.
Exxon faces a rigorous review process, requiring approval from both the U.S. Maritime Administration and Coast Guard, as well as New Jersey environmental authorities regarding the placement of an underwater pipeline. While no route has been finalized, Davis said the company's initial focus is to build 40 miles of undersea pipeline ending in Raritan Bay.
The floating terminal, the equivalent of four football fields, is designed to receive liquefied gas from double-hulled LNG tankers about twice a week. The fuel would be stored temporarily in tanks at the terminal, then warmed to convert it back to a gas for delivery via pipeline to facilities on land.
Early next year, Exxon plans to begin detailed environmental and economic studies required during the permitting process, and does not expect to file an application with regulatory authorities until 2009. If approved, the project is not expected to begin operating until the middle of the next decade, the company said.
Exxon hired former New Jersey Attorney General John Farmer Jr., a senior counsel to the 9/11 commission, to conduct a safety and security assessment of the facility. "BlueOcean Energy is developing a sound plan for a safe and secure facility," Farmer said in a statement issued by Exxon.
If approved, the project would generate about $3 billion in economic activity over the course of its lifetime, creating 100 jobs on the terminal as well as 200 indirect jobs, according to a study commissioned to Rutgers University's Bloustein School of Planning and Public Policy.
There is now only one offshore LNG terminal in the United States, located in the Gulf of Mexico off Louisiana. Exxon currently is building terminals in Texas and Wales, as well as an offshore facility in the Adriatic Sea off Italy.
Besides its enormous resources, Exxon brings a lot of expertise in developing oil and gas facilities, analysts said.
"You are talking about a blue-chip player," said Paul Patterson, an energy analyst with Glenrock Associates in New York. "It's hard to think of anyone with more credibility when it comes to big energy projects."
Tom Johnson may be reached at tjohnson@starledger.com or (973) 392-5972. Staff writer Jeff May contributed to this report.
$1B Exxon site couldn't be seen from shore
http://www.nj.com/hp/135/1212_exxon.jpg
Wednesday, December 12, 2007
BY TOM JOHNSON
Star-Ledger Staff
Exxon Mobil said yesterday it wants to build a $1 billion liquefied natural gas terminal about 20 miles off the New Jersey coast, a project that it says will deliver new fuel to a region where rising demand and scarce supplies have led to spikes in heating and electric bills.
The project, involving a floating natural gas terminal more than 1,100 feet long and 100 feet high, would be anchored to the ocean floor in about 150 feet of water. It would not be visible from shore and would be located away from shipping and fishing lanes as well as recreational areas, the giant energy company said.
The facility, dubbed BlueOcean Energy, would be connected to land via an underwater pipeline able to deliver about 1.2 billion cubic feet of natural gas daily, enough to meet the needs of 5 million residential customers.
The announcement is the fourth in a series of proposals for liquefied natural gas (LNG) terminals in and around New Jersey, including one to be built on an artificial island 19 miles east of Sandy Hook and another along the Delaware River in South Jersey. Exxon said the terminal will be built off the coast of Monmouth County, but did not pinpoint a location.
"There's a need for increased capacity for natural gas in the Northeast," said Damien Gaul, an economist with the U.S. Energy Administration. "The question is how is it going to happen. It is not likely that all these proposals will be built."
LNG is natural gas that has been super-cooled to a liquid state so it can be more easily transported over long distances.
Natural gas is viewed by many, including some environmentalists, as a cleaner and potentially cheaper alternative for generating electricity, particularly if state and federal governments, as expected, impose tough new constraints on power plants that emit greenhouse gases.
Because natural gas is highly combustible, however, LNG facilities have been criticized for posing a safety hazard, including from terrorist attacks. Industry experts note during the past 40 years, LNG ships have delivered more than 45,000 cargoes worldwide without a tank failure.
Exxon, the nation's largest oil and gas company, brings enormous resources to bear on its proposal. Bill Davis, vice president of LNG Market Development, a subsidiary of Exxon, said part of the decision in selecting the New Jersey location was based on where the gas was needed the most and where a terminal could be built in an environmentally sound manner.
Many conservationists are likely to oppose the plan, saying it is part of a general push by the industry to move industrial facilities into ocean waters, where they encounter less resistance than in heavily populated areas.
"It's really the beginning of the age of ocean sprawl," said Tim Dillingham, executive director of the American Littoral Society, citing other proposals to build offshore LNG terminals in Long Island Sound and off Massachusetts. "The bottom line is the public has fought long and hard to clean up the ocean from sewage sludge and industrial waste. We didn't do that to turn over a cleaned-up ocean for industry to profit from."
Rep. Frank Pallone, a Democratic congressman who represents parts of the Jersey Shore, also opposes the project, saying the terminal would be a tremendous environmental burden and "an accident waiting to happen."
Bill Cooper, executive director of the Center for Liquefied Natural Gas, an industry trade group, said the benefit of putting terminals offshore include being remote from populated areas, but the downside is they generally cost twice what it takes to build on-shore.
Exxon faces a rigorous review process, requiring approval from both the U.S. Maritime Administration and Coast Guard, as well as New Jersey environmental authorities regarding the placement of an underwater pipeline. While no route has been finalized, Davis said the company's initial focus is to build 40 miles of undersea pipeline ending in Raritan Bay.
The floating terminal, the equivalent of four football fields, is designed to receive liquefied gas from double-hulled LNG tankers about twice a week. The fuel would be stored temporarily in tanks at the terminal, then warmed to convert it back to a gas for delivery via pipeline to facilities on land.
Early next year, Exxon plans to begin detailed environmental and economic studies required during the permitting process, and does not expect to file an application with regulatory authorities until 2009. If approved, the project is not expected to begin operating until the middle of the next decade, the company said.
Exxon hired former New Jersey Attorney General John Farmer Jr., a senior counsel to the 9/11 commission, to conduct a safety and security assessment of the facility. "BlueOcean Energy is developing a sound plan for a safe and secure facility," Farmer said in a statement issued by Exxon.
If approved, the project would generate about $3 billion in economic activity over the course of its lifetime, creating 100 jobs on the terminal as well as 200 indirect jobs, according to a study commissioned to Rutgers University's Bloustein School of Planning and Public Policy.
There is now only one offshore LNG terminal in the United States, located in the Gulf of Mexico off Louisiana. Exxon currently is building terminals in Texas and Wales, as well as an offshore facility in the Adriatic Sea off Italy.
Besides its enormous resources, Exxon brings a lot of expertise in developing oil and gas facilities, analysts said.
"You are talking about a blue-chip player," said Paul Patterson, an energy analyst with Glenrock Associates in New York. "It's hard to think of anyone with more credibility when it comes to big energy projects."
Tom Johnson may be reached at tjohnson@starledger.com or (973) 392-5972. Staff writer Jeff May contributed to this report.