In situations of this nature, when politicians are making the calls (especially at the Federal level) history will tell you it's usually not in our best interest. What government will want you to believe is what you'll hear, better structure for fishing. What you won't hear is all the adverse effects. Example, what happens if testing / blasting occurs in the Fall during summer flounder migration offshore and what if it takes place right where the masses migrate. What'll be the impact on egg reproduction or the biomass itself. Could kill every egg laid. What happens to the fishery, might never rebound. If scallop beds are killed, I understand young ling require scallops as part of their early life cycle process. What's the impact on those two vital fisheries. The ocean is one big food chain and if one part is thrown off the entire food chain will be impacted. When there's another terrorist attack, will the area be closed to the public permanently for security reasons or as Gerry mentioned made into a Marine Protected Area for conservation reasons. More information is needed including designated area being considered. Everything in life has pros and cons, like I said the devil is always in the details and business / government never disclose the cons for obvious reasons.

If the project is so strategic to the US, as Gerry mentioned why would we not own it ourselves as opposed to a foreign concern? Counter-intuitive to the direction our government has elected in trying to be less dependent on foreign countries for energy resources as opposed to more. That in itself begs the question of why. A foreign country would be even less concerned about the potential environmental impacts, why would they since it's not their resources at risk.

Unless proven otherwise, to me this is potentially another Magnuson Stevens Act waiting to happen because politicians legislated it to for their own personal agenda, not because it's the right thing to do.