Raritan Bay Pipeline

[akoop]

I already posted this in the saltwater board but wanted to get the most exposure as possible so I am also posting it here.

Please read this and sign the petition to stop this pipeline!

https://www.change.org/p/kathleen-frangione-urge-gov-murphy-to-deny-williams-nese-pipeline-project?cs_tk=AoTTJke6V7riOFNXxFwAAXicyyvNyQEABF8B vEh29tzCeGU3Rib10prcXFs%3D&utm_campaign=f96c01853e404fa78cac5b41e20dbaf8&utm_medium=email&utm_source=petition_signer_receipt&utm_term=cs

[Charlie B]

See my comment in the saltwater section...Charlie

[Ken Lyons]

I really don’t want to start a war but... con Ed is not accepting any new gas customers because of concerns about its capacity to satisfy additional demand.
The pipeline will be carrying natural gas, aka methane. If you google methane many of the definitions begin “methane is a harmless gas.” It is colorless, odorless and insoluble. If a leak did occur it would bubble to the surface and disappear. Of course anything that leaked couldn’t be sold so it is very much in the interest of the pipeline company to see that this doesn’t happen and to fix it if it does occur. In the absence of additional gas oil and upstate, coal will have to be burned. All of this gets a lot worse when they shut down Indian Point.
All of which doesn’t mean this will be an unalloyed blessing but we don’t get perfect in this life.
I have no direct interest in any of this. I don’t work for any of the companies involved

[AndyS]

I think the size was a 24 or 36 inch pipeline. I remember when they protested the Alaskan pipeline. Here, I have a better idea.

[Ken Lyons]

Andy, you can’t transport gas in tank cars.

[Charlie B]

Andy, you can’t transport gas in tank cars.

Not so sure about that. Don't they transport LNG in ships? Would seem pretty similar...Charlie

edit...I just googled it It can be and is transported by rail and trucks.

[Ken Lyons]

They transport LNG, liquid natural gas in very large insulated tanks on oceangoing ships. The gas is compressed and cooled and if it doesn’t stay cold stand back. The internal volume of an insulted tank car would be too small for it to make any sense.

[Charlie B]

http://energyservicessouth.com/pipelines-vs-rail-transport-for-natural-gas/

Here is the link. It is transported by rail

[Ken Lyons]

I didn’t know that but it is still far less efficient than a pipeline and not nearly as safe.

[Drossi]

The pipeline itself isn't so much of an issue as dredging up and disposing of the potentially toxic sediment will be. That said the gas supply capacity is needed. Everybody has an opinion until they flick the switch and the lights don't come on and the furnace doesn't fire up.

[Charlie B]

I didn’t know that but it is still far less efficient than a pipeline and not nearly as safe.

Agreed...Charlie

[akoop]

The pipeline itself isn't so much of an issue as dredging up and disposing of the potentially toxic sediment will be. That said the gas supply capacity is needed. Everybody has an opinion until they flick the switch and the lights don't come on and the furnace doesn't fire up.

Here is an part of what I read about the project that I am opposed to:

The project, however, will stir up over 1 million tons of contaminated harmful muck through dredging that include PCBs, dioxin, lead, mercury and arsenic in Raritan Bay. The project will also release thousands of gallons of drilling fluid in the Raritan Bay.

[Charlie B]

Here is an part of what I read about the project that I am opposed to:

The project, however, will stir up over 1 million tons of contaminated harmful muck through dredging that include PCBs, dioxin, lead, mercury and arsenic in Raritan Bay. The project will also release thousands of gallons of drilling fluid in the Raritan Bay.

I don't know where you got your information from but if you want the actual environmental impact statement here it is. Actual fact not emotion...Charlie

https://www.ferc.gov/industries/gas/enviro/eis/2019/01-25-19-FEIS/part-1.pdf

[akoop]

I don't know where you got your information from but if you want the actual environmental impact statement here it is. Actual fact not emotion...Charlie

https://www.ferc.gov/industries/gas/enviro/eis/2019/01-25-19-FEIS/part-1.pdf

This is extracted from the PDF file you kinked to:

Transco proposes to dispose of acceptable material at the USACE-managed Historic Area
Remediation Site (HARS), a 15.7 square nautical mile area in the Atlantic Ocean, approximately 7.7
nautical miles south of Rockaway, New York. The HARS previously received contaminated sediments
and other materials during 63 years of disposal activity, and the USACE is now capping the area with
dredged material that meets certain USACE and EPA chemical criteria and which would not cause
significant undesirable effects, including through bioaccumulation. In September 2017, Transco submitted
an application to the USACE for a permit under section 103 of the MPRSA to transport and dispose of
dredge material at the HARS and continues to consult with the USACE regarding potential use of the
HARS. For dredge material determined unsuitable for disposal at the HARS, Transco has secured
preliminary agreement to dispose of the material at licensed onshore facilities in Kearney and Jersey City,
New Jersey. Transco may side-cast dredge material derived from portions of anchorage area 28 and
between MPs 35.2 and 35.5 and re-use this material as backfill if approved by the NYSDEC; otherwise,
these dredge materials would also be disposed of at approved onshore or offshore sites.

So it sounds to me that contaminated material will be disposed of both in the water and on the land. In my opinion it is better not to dredge up this material.

[Hookmanski]

I don't know where you got your information from but if you want the actual environmental impact statement here it is. Actual fact not emotion...Charlie

https://www.ferc.gov/industries/gas/enviro/eis/2019/01-25-19-FEIS/part-1.pdf

Just read through "General Impacts and Mitigation" on page 4-91, there seem to be a lot of potential impact risks not only on aquatic life but also on migratory bird species (birds were mentioned earlier on). Why take the chances?

I bet people will be pissed about it when there aren't any fish in the area during construction.

[Hookmanski]

Screenshot from the PDF

[Ken Lyons]

A project like this has to have environmental impact.you can’t drive your car without some environmental impact. It’s always a cost benefit analysis. Is it better to burn gas than oil or coal? How about the people for whom energy consumes such a big part of their income? Gas promises to be much cheaper. This is not a conclusion but an attempt to look at both sides.

[acabtp]

So it sounds to me that contaminated material will be disposed of both in the water and on the land. In my opinion it is better not to dredge up this material.

what you pasted says contaminated material will be disposed of on land. clean ("acceptable") material will be used to cap a site where contaminated material used to be disposed. both the removal and land disposal of contaminated material and using clean material to cap an older site result in less total pollution in the bay going forward. sounds good to me.

they don't want to dredge up the length of the pipeline, they want to put a bunch of it in with directional drilling, way under the bottom without stirring it up. as with any project, there will be a few places where things will be disturbed during the construction but it's not cutting a channel across the whole bay through all the sediments.

pipelines are way safer than trains or ship transport. i like the idea of a pipeline much better than an alternative of say, CNG ships regularly transiting the bay.

everybody likes cheap fuel and energy independence. everybody also always has knee jerk reactions against infrastructure projects.

[Charlie B]

Executive summary--Major conclusions--ES14

The proposed route and construction methods for the Raritan Bay Loop were developed in
consultation with the USACE and other agencies to minimize crossing designated
anchorage areas, meet USACE marine traffic safety requirements, and reduce impacts on
water quality and aquatic wildlife. Sixty-four percent of the offshore loop would be
installed using a jet trencher, which would not require the removal and disposal of seafloor
sediment. Thirty-one percent of the offshore loop would be installed using a clamshell
excavator fitted with an environmental bucket, and an environmental clamshell would also
be used to excavate horizontal directional drill (HDD) entry and exit pits. The remainder
of the offshore loop would be installed via HDD, thereby avoiding direct seafloor impacts.
Project-related turbidity would be temporary, and most sedimentation would occur near to
the approximately 87.8-acre area of seafloor that would be directly affected by
construction. In addition, Transco consulted with the NMFS, NJDEP, and NYSDEC to
minimize construction conflicts with time of year restrictions for certain marine species to
the extent practicable. As a result, impacts on aquatic resources would be temporary and
minor to moderate.

And the final part of the major conclusion is.

As a result, impacts on aquatic resources would be temporary and
minor to moderate.

[AndyS]

If you are against natural gas pipelines then be sure to turn off the natural gas going into your home, every bit helps.