Category Archives: Offshore

A new register of beneficial owners of overseas companies owning UK property is set to have a major impact on offshore investors. In 2016 the Government announced its intention to introduce a publicly accessible register of the beneficial owners of overseas companies owning UK property or engaging in UK government procurement.

This register would be the first of its kind in the world. The UK has already taken significant steps towards corporate transparency with the introduction last year of the people with significant control register (PSC register), a central, publicly accessible register of those who control UK companies and limited liability partnerships (LLPs).

The new register would apply to existing property ownership as well as to future property acquisitions. Following on from the 2016 announcement, the Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy (BEIS) has now published a call for evidence on the proposals and on the impact of the new policy.

The new register wouldapply to new and existingproperty ownership.

This is framed as a consultation on the design of the proposals, rather than an opportunity to revisit fundamental questions such as whether the register should be open and accessible to the public, or indeed whether the UK should have a register at all.

However, there are indications that the Government may be prepared to revisit its decision to introduce a public register, at least to some extent if investors and others can demonstrate that the new disclosure regime is likely to deter legitimate investment in the UK to an unacceptable degree.

The call for evidence can be found at https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/ system/uploads/attachment_ datafile/606611/beneficial-ownershipregister- call-evidence.pdf.

UK property as an investment proposition for overseas investors has been affected already by the increased taxation through SDLT, ATED, Capital Gains, tax on development profit and Inheritance Tax. These additional proposals will mean that any benefit from confidentiality of ownership will be removed.

Samantha Hook is a Partner in Howard Kennedys Real Estate team. She acts for investors owning property around the world. email: samantha.hook@howardkennedy.com. http://www.howardkennedy.com.

Read more:

Offshore investors - The Negotiator

July 17, 2017 02:02 ET | Source: SBM Offshore N.V.

SBM Offshore has agreed Heads of Terms for settlement with a 73.6% majority group of the US$500 million primary insurance layer for the settling of insurers' shares of SBM Offshore's insurance claim relating to the Yme project.

The final agreement, which remains subject to contract, is expected to be formalized in the coming weeks.

Pursuant to the settlement, SBM Offshore will receive a cash payment of c. US$247 million in full and final settlement of its claim against the settling insurers. Following reimbursement first of legal fees and other claim related expenses incurred to date, the balance of the settlement monies will be shared equally between SBM Offshore and Repsol in accordance with the terms of their Settlement Agreement of 11 March 2013 which concluded the Yme project.

SBM Offshore continues to pursue its claim against all remaining insurers including the two excess layers, the trial of which is scheduled to commence October 2018.

Further details of this agreement and the claim are confidential.

Corporate Profile

SBM Offshore N.V. is a listed holding company that is headquartered in Amsterdam. It holds direct and indirect interests in other companies that collectively with SBM Offshore N.V. form the SBM Offshore group ("the Company").

SBM Offshore provides floating production solutions to the offshore energy industry, over the full product life-cycle. The Company is market leading in leased floating production systems with multiple units currently in operation and has unrivalled operational experience in this field. The Company's main activities are the design, supply, installation, operation and the life extension of Floating Production, Storage and Offloading (FPSO) vessels. These are either owned and operated by SBM Offshore and leased to its clients or supplied on a turnkey sale basis.

As of December 31, 2016, Group companies employ approximately 4,750 people worldwide. Full time company employees totaling c. 4,250 are spread over five regional centers, ten operational shore bases and the offshore fleet of vessels. A further 500 are working for the joint ventures with several construction yards. For further information, please visit our website at http://www.sbmoffshore.com.

The companies in which SBM Offshore N.V. directly and indirectly owns investments are separate entities. In this communication "SBM Offshore" is sometimes used for convenience where references are made to SBM Offshore N.V. and its subsidiaries in general, or where no useful purpose is served by identifying the particular company or companies.

The Management Board Amsterdam, the Netherlands, July 17, 2017

Note: dates in bold have changed as communicated in SBM Offshore's press release dated 10 July 2017

Disclaimer

This press release contains inside information within the meaning of Article 7(1) of the EU Market Abuse Regulation. Some of the statements contained in this release that are not historical facts are statements of future expectations and other forward-looking statements based on management's current views and assumptions and involve known and unknown risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results, performance, or events to differ materially from those in such statements. Such forward-looking statements are subject to various risks and uncertainties, which may cause actual results and performance of the Company's business to differ materially and adversely from the forward-looking statements. Certain such forward-looking statements can be identified by the use of forward- looking terminology such as "believes", "may", "will", "should", "would be", "expects" or "anticipates" or similar expressions, or the negative thereof, or other variations thereof, or comparable terminology, or by discussions of strategy, plans, or intentions. Should one or more of these risks or uncertainties materialize, or should underlying assumptions prove incorrect, actual results may vary materially from those described in this release as anticipated, believed, or expected. SBM Offshore NV does not intend, and does not assume any obligation, to update any industry information or forward-looking statements set forth in this release to reflect subsequent events or circumstances. Nothing in this press release shall be deemed an offer to sell, or a solicitation of an offer to buy, any securities.

SBMO Agreed Heads of Terms Settlement Yme: http://hugin.info/130754/R/2120620/807936.pdf

Related Articles

Schiedam, NETHERLANDS

More here:

SBM Offshore Has Agreed Heads of Terms for Settlement with a Majority Group of Primary Layer Insurers on Its Yme ... - GlobeNewswire (press release)

Source: Environmental Defense Center

Today, the federal court in Los Angeles issued an order ruling that the Environmental Defense Center (EDC) and Santa Barbara Channelkeeper (Channelkeeper) prevailed against the federal governments effort to dismiss their case. In November 2016, the groups filed a lawsuit challenging the failure of the federal government to analyze and disclose the potential risks and impacts caused by fracking and acidizing from offshore oil platforms in southern California, including the Santa Barbara Channel.

In April 2016, the federal government filed a motion attempting to dismiss the case and prevent the court from addressing the merits. The government took the incorrect position that EDC and Channelkeeper could not challenge their programmatic analysis and instead must wait for individual permits that approve fracking and acidizing. The court rejected this argument and ruled in favor of EDC and Channelkeeper on all grounds.

The court determined that the agencies analysis allows the use of fracking and acidizing without restriction offshore California. In addition, the court ruled that this action is appropriately in front of the court now because even if future permits are required, the agencies have made their final determination that these actions do not impact the environment, and the government will not be required to revisit that decision. Therefore, EDC and Channelkeeper have the right to challenge the federal governments decision in court.

We are thrilled that the court saw through the governments attempt to avoid the merits of this case, said Maggie Hall, Staff Attorney with EDC. The federal governments own analysis makes clear that the agencies have approved the widespread and unlimited use of fracking and acidizing. This action could not be more in need of the courts review.

The lawsuit alleges that the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) and Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE) violated the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) because they failed to consult with the expert wildlife agencies regarding potential impacts from these well stimulation techniques to at least 25 threatened and endangered species, including whales, sea otters, fur seals, sea turtles, marine and coastal birds, fish, and abalone. The lawsuit also seeks to compel the agencies to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) that will fully evaluate and disclose the potential impacts on the marine environment, including toxic discharges of frac flowback fluid and extending the life of the existing oil platforms.

The impacts of offshore fracking and acidizing have never been meaningfully analyzed, said Kira Redmond, Executive Director of Channelkeeper. These practices will extend the life of existing oil platforms in a sensitive marine environment, which is still recovering from the May 19, 2015 Plains All American Pipeline rupture that devastated Californias coastline. We need information to understand the potential impacts of these practices so that appropriate measures can be implemented to protect the diverse web of marine life off our coast.

EDC previously sued BOEM and BSEE after learning that the agencies had approved more than 50 permits allowing offshore well stimulation, including fracking and acidizing, without any environmental review. That lawsuit led to a settlement agreement requiring the agencies to prepare the first ever environmental review of offshore fracking and acidizing. Unfortunately, the resulting analysis failed to meaningfully address the potential impacts to the marine environment.

The use of offshore fracking and acidizing in the Santa Barbara Channel poses significant risks to the sensitive marine environment. The Santa Barbara Channel harbors such incredible biological diversity that it has been dubbed the Galapagos of North America. Acidizing and fracking are both potentially dangerous oil production processes involving the injection of large amounts of water and chemicals into the ground in order to fracture or dissolve rock. More information can be found in EDCsDirty Water: Fracking Offshore Californiareport.

The Environmental Defense Center,a non-profit law firm, protects and enhances the local environment through education, advocacy, and legal action and works primarily within Ventura, Santa Barbara, and San Luis Obispo counties. Since 1977, EDC has empowered community-based organizations to advance environmental protection. EDCs focus areas include protection of the Santa Barbara Channel, ensuring clean water, preserving open space and wildlife, and addressing climate and energy. Learn more about EDC atwww.EnvironmentalDefenseCenter.org.

Santa Barbara Channelkeeperis a grassroots non-profit organization dedicated to protecting and restoring the Santa Barbara Channel and its watersheds through science-based advocacy, education, field work and enforcement. Learn more about Channelkeeper atwww.sbck.org.

See more here:

ENVIRONMENTAL GROUPS DEFEAT TRUMP ADMINISTRATION'S ATTEMPT TO DISMISS CASE ON OFFSHORE ... - Santa Barbara Edhat

Island Packet

LWV: No to seismic testing, offshore drilling Island Packet Regarding the proposed Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to Geophysical Surveys in the Atlantic Ocean, the League of Women Voters of Hilton Head Island/Bluffton Area strenuously opposes seismic testing in the waters off our coast as a prelude to ...

See original here:

LWV: No to seismic testing, offshore drilling - Island Packet

Jennette Barnes @jbarnesnews

NEW BEDFORD A Texas company is building the nation's first offshore wind-turbine installation vessel and designing it to fit through the New Bedford hurricane barrier.

The move could ease concerns about not having a U.S.-flagged vessel that can transport turbine components in compliance with federal law.

Under the Merchant Marine Act of 1920, commonly called the Jones Act, a ship built or registered outside the United States cannot transport cargo from one U.S. port to another. A wind farm is considered a port.

When Deepwater Wind built America's first offshore wind farm off Block Island in 2015 and 2016, it used smaller U.S. vessels to transport turbine components out to the Norwegian-owned vessel Brave Tern, flagged out of Malta.

Jeffrey Grybowski, CEO of Deepwater Wind, said any increase in the industry's capacity is good.

"I think it's an important signal to the market overall that there is a vessel owner that is willing to invest in new capacity," he said.

Use of a ship like the Brave Tern, a self-propelled jack-up vessel with four legs, doesn't come cheap: The cost was roughly a quarter-million dollars a day, according to Grybowski and Paul Vigeant, executive director of the New Bedford Wind Energy Center.

Transferring turbine components from a smaller ship to the installation vessel only complicates the process and makes it more expensive, Vigeant said.

"You couldn't do this on a full, industrial-scale project," he said. The Block Island Wind Farm has five turbines.

But will an American ship cost less? That remains to be seen, according to Grybowski.

"Since we don't have a U.S.-flagged jack-up vessel, I don't know what that would cost," he said.

One or more winning bidders for a larger wind project off Massachusetts are expected to be identified by April 23. If Deepwater wins a contract, the company will certainly compare the cost of U.S. and foreign vessels, which could bring costs down, Grybowski said.

"It's a good development in the market. I don't think it will be the last development," he said.

Engineering company Zentech, of Houston, is constructing the vessel with U.S.-made components, including a barge, legs, and propulsion system.Renewable Resources International of Virginia is consulting on the work.

The ship will be able to carry and install components for at least three turbines of 6-9 megawatts each, according to a Zentech press release. The jacking system can handle 16,000 tons.

Zentech builds similar vessels for the oil and gas industry. When the new ship is not being used for offshore wind, it will decommission offshore oil and gas infrastructure, according to the release.

The press release indicates that the ship will be able to carry and install not only components, but also fully assembled turbines, "with evolving innovation."Whether that capacity will be present from the start or in the future was unclear. Zentech did not return a call seeking comment.

New Bedford Mayor Jon Mitchell hailed the development as further proof that New Bedford will play a critical role in the nascent U.S. industry.

This major investment sends an unambiguous signal that the offshore wind industry is preparing for arrival in America, and New Bedford in particular," he said in an email. "It is one more step for the Port of New Bedford in establishing itself as a leading offshore wind port on the East Coast.

Craig Gilvarg, a spokesman for the Massachusetts Clean Energy Center, called the new vessel an important step forward.

Follow Jennette Barnes on Twitter @jbarnesnews.

Read the original here:

First U.S. offshore wind vessel tailored to New Bedford - SouthCoastToday.com

The United States has objected to a project of a Japanese consortium and Russias state-run oil giant Rosneft to drill for oil offshore Russia, Bloomberg reported on Thursday, citing people familiar with the matter.

Japan Oil, Gas and Metals National Corporation (JOGMEC), Inpex Corporation, and Marubeni Corporation signed in December 2016 a Heads of Agreement with Rosneft to potentially jointly explore in the southwestern offshore area of Sakhalin Island of Russia. The three Japanese companies expect to strengthen Japanese-Russian economic cooperation, and diversify Japans energy sources, Jogmec said at the time.

But since then, the U.S. government has objected to the project, basing its intervention over sanctions on the grounds that the U.S. allies within G7 should not backfill in projects that U.S. companies would be barred from carrying out, according to Bloombergs sources. Japans position is that this project is not backfilling because the Japanese companies were not competing with U.S. firms for the project, according to one of the sources.

In addition, part of the area that Rosneft and the Japanese consortium agreed to explore includes deepwater, which is subject to U.S. sanctions on the provision of equipment and services to deepwater oil projects in Russia, according to Bloombergs sources.

But according to the people with knowledge of the matter, the U.S. and Japanese governments are still discussing the project and may find a solution that would allow the project to go ahead. Some areas in the exploration license are not classified as deepwater under the sanctions, according to Bloomberg.

In April this year, the U.S. Treasury Department declined to issue waivers to U.S. companies, including Exxon, for drilling that is currently prohibited by Russian sanctions.

While Exxons and Japans plans are being stalled by the sanctions, Italys Eni, for example, is boosting oil and gas exploration and production with Rosneft, as well as in oil refining, petrochemicals, trading, and marketing, both inside and outside Russia. According to Rosnefts CEO Igor Sechin, the two companies would start exploration drilling in the Black Sea this summer.

By Tsvetana Paraskova for Oilprice.com

More Top Reads From Oilprice.com:

Read the original here:

US Opposes Japanese Plan To Drill For Oil Offshore Russia - OilPrice.com

Considering the legendary memory of elephants, Sri Lanka's navy may have made a lifelong friend this week. On July 11, naval divers and wildlife officials spent 12 hours rescuing a wild Asian elephant that had been swept about 9 miles out to sea.

It's unclear how exactly the elephant wound up so far from shore, but the navy suspects a strong current carried it there from somewhere near the coastal town of Kokkilai. It might have been swept up while trying to reach a patch of forest by crossing the Kokkilai Lagoon, an estuary that connects to the Bay of Bengal.

"They usually wade through shallow waters or even swim across to take a shortcut," navy spokesman Chaminda Walakuluge tells the AFP.

The situation was discovered by a naval speedboat on routine patrol, prompting the navy to send out another patrol boat and a team of divers. As the scope of the task became clear, two more vessels from the Rapid Action Boat Squadron joined in, along with a team from Sri Lanka's Department of Wildlife Conservation.

The divers were advised by wildlife officials on the scene, whose guidance "became extremely vital in the rescue mission," the navy reports. Although the distressed elephant was still swimming and snorkeling with its trunk when rescuers arrived (see the video below), they doubted it could reach land on its own. It seemed hesitant at first, but the divers eventually corralled it with rope and towed it back to shore.

By the time they got there, the rescue had taken 12 exhausting hours, but the elephant was OK. The navy helped guide it to the Yan Oya area in Pulmoddai, where it was handed over to wildlife officials. According to Sri Lanka's Hiru News, wildlife officials then released the elephant into the nearby jungle.

They may look awkward in water, but elephants are actually excellent swimmers. They're known to readily cross rivers, or even shallow stretches of ocean when they feel it's worth the trouble. They often use their trunk as a natural snorkel, and the ancestors of this elephant may have even colonized Sri Lanka by swimming over from the mainland. Still, the ocean is known for throwing curveballs, and as one conservationist tells the Guardian, this elephant was likely running on empty.

"They can't keep swimming for long because they burn a lot of energy," says Avinash Krishnan of the conservation group A Rocha. "And the salt water isn't good for their skin, so in this case, the situation probably warranted human intervention."

Asian elephants are listed as an endangered species by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), mainly due to habitat loss, fragmentation and degradation. The species was once widespread in Sri Lanka, according to the IUCN, but is now limited to the island's dry zone, and "continues to lose range to development activities throughout the island."

This particular elephant was lucky to be spotted by a patrol boat, and to receive so much help from people who could have just done nothing.

"It is a miraculous escape for the elephant," Walakuluge says.

Excerpt from:

Navy divers rescue elephant 9 miles offshore - Mother Nature Network (blog)

Enlarge / An image of an offshore wind turbine, from Dong Energy.

Dong Energy

This week, Virginia utility Dominion announced that it would partner with Danish firm Dong Energy to build two offshore wind turbines as test cases for a commercial-sized installation.

Currently, the US only has one 30MW commercial offshore wind farm off Block Island in Rhode Island. Renewable energy proponentshave sought to expand offshore winds reach for years in the hope it wouldre-create the low-cost energy boom that has occurred in the US with onshore wind. The offshore resource has a lot of promiseturbines can be built bigger out at sea, so they can generate more power, and wind is generally less variable.

But building offshore wind infrastructure is still expensive; its new territory for US contractors. Few utilities have experience managing offshore wind energy. Partnering with Dong Energy will bring some expertise across the pondthe company has constructed many large offshore wind installations in Europe, and it even submitted a subsidy-free bid to German energy regulators for a new installation to go up in 2020.

This new project, called the Coastal Virginia Offshore Wind Project, will consist of just two 6MW test turbines, 27 miles off the coast of Virginia Beach, where they cant be seen from the shore. The turbines will be built next to a 112,800-acre site leased by Dominion Energy from the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM). The site is large enough that it could be used to build out a 2,000MW offshore wind installation someday.

But thats far in the future. In a phone conversation with Ars, Dominions communications director, David Botkins, said a lot has to happen before the utility would commit to building that much offshore wind. These first two test turbines, which wont be completed until 2020, will only generate 12MW together and will send electricity back to shore via a 34 kilovolt distribution line. Its never been done before in the mid-Atlantic United States. First weve gotta get these two turbines constructed,"Botkins said. "Then we have to take the time to see how they perform under a regimen that includes exposing them to potential hurricane-force wind and studying marine and aquatic life impact, water currents, et cetera, et cetera.

The project is not without its controversy. In 2016, Dominion reportedly let a $40 million Department of Energy (DOE) grant offer lapse, which made Governor Terry McAuliffe unhappy, according to the Richmond Times-Dispatch. Botkins told Ars that the lapse was a purely economic decision. We had to go out for bid on two separate occasions because on the first round of bids the price came in way too high to justify moving forward. The second round was a little bit better but not much, he said. He added that he thought at that point, the DOE decided to move forward with funding Block Island.

As a result, the two test turbines, which will be 600ft tall with a 500ft rotor diameter, arent receiving any federal funding. The project is supposed to cost $300 million and will be wholly owned by the utility, which will seek to recoup the costs through rate increases. Botkins told Ars that no rate recovery proposals have been made yet.

Other Atlantic states have moved forward with offshore wind projects in recent months. New York entered a deal with Deepwater Wind, the company that built the Block Island installation, in January. That project will consist of a 90MW wind farm 30 miles southeast of Montauk, and it's set to be completed by the end of 2022 if all goes well. Massachusetts has also called for 1,600MW of offshore wind by 2027.

View original post here:

Virginia utility agrees to install two offshore wind turbines for study - Ars Technica

Starting in 2020 Marylands electricity consumers will be paying higher electric bills in order to subsidize two wind projects to be developed off the Ocean City waterfront. Over the lives of these projects the subsidies will total more than $2 billion. Despite this exorbitant cost the projects will deliver no environmental benefits and, most likely, will contribute to global warming. How did this lose-lose situation come about?

Offshore wind development was a pet project of former Governor OMalley. After several tries he finally got the legislators to pass the Maryland Offshore Wind Act of 2013. The act authorizes the Maryland Public Service Commission (PSC) to raise electric rates to support offshore wind projects but exempts large industrial and agricultural customers from these rate increases, forcing Marylands residential and smaller business customers to carry the full burden.

Kim Hairston, Baltimore Sun

Left to right, Lt. Gov. Anthony Brown sits with Thomas V. Mike Miller, Jr., Senate President, Gov. Martin O'Malley and Michael E. Busch, House Speaker, as they sign HB 226 Maryland Offshore Wind Energy Act of 2013 into law in the Governor's reception room.

Left to right, Lt. Gov. Anthony Brown sits with Thomas V. Mike Miller, Jr., Senate President, Gov. Martin O'Malley and Michael E. Busch, House Speaker, as they sign HB 226 Maryland Offshore Wind Energy Act of 2013 into law in the Governor's reception room. (Kim Hairston, Baltimore Sun)

However, the act includes two important consumer protections. One prohibits the PSC from approving any project that does not demonstrate positive net economic, environmental and health benefits to the State based on a cost-benefit analysis that includes: any impact on residential, commercial, and industrial ratepayers over the life of the offshore wind project. The other caps the combined costs imposed by all approved projects at a maximum of $1.50 per month for residential customers and at a maximum of a 1.5 percent increase for business customers bills.

Last year two out-of-state wind developers submitted proposals to the PSC. To evaluate the proposals, commissioners hired an outside consultant who concluded that, starting in 2020, the two projects combined would raise residential customers bills, on average, by about $1.40 per month and raise business customers bills, on average, by about 1.4 percent. Although these increases appear modest, over the 20-year lives of the projects they will total to more than $2 billion (in todays dollars of purchasing power).

The PSC and the Maryland Energy Administration defend the projects, claiming they will create jobs and spur economic growth. Indeed, the PSCs consultant estimated that they would create 9,700 direct and indirect jobs. Dividing $2 billion by 9,700 reveals that the state is spending more than $200,000 per year for each job created.

Many of these jobs will be for skilled construction workers, likely earning around $100,000 per year. Furthermore, many of these workers will likely live out of state and commute to the job sites. Surely the state can find cheaper, more efficient ways to create jobs. For example, wouldnt this money be better spent creating job opportunities for Baltimores inner-city poor?

Despite the acts requiring each project to pass a cost-benefit test, the PSC appears to have never compared the ratepayers costs to support these projects with the monetary value of the benefits the projects are expected to deliver. Because these offshore wind projects will likely produce energy costing three to four times more than renewable energy produced by onshore wind or large-scale solar it is unlikely that either project can pass a bona fide cost-benefit test.

The PSC appears to have revealed its true agenda in stating, the State has already made the policy decision to authorize [offshore wind] development and the ratepayer impacts that may result from it. Really? Then why did the legislators include a cost-benefit analysis requirement in the act?

The PSC and the Maryland Energy Administration also claim the projects will reduce carbon emissions. However, the PSCs own consultant concluded that while carbon emissions in Maryland would decrease carbon emissions will increase in the central and western areas serviced by PJM, the operator of the Mid-Atlantic's high-voltage regional electric system. So, the consultants concluded, overall emissions in PJM would increase.

Carbon emissions have no adverse local effects, therefore reducing them in Maryland will not benefit the state. But increasing regional emissions will contribute to global warming, which will harm the state. Because of its extensive shore line Maryland is particularly susceptible to rising sea levels.

Neither of these offshore wind projects should have been approved. The PSCs decision is appalling. We Marylanders deserve better.

Robert Borlick (rborlick@borlick.com) is an energy economist with more than 40 years of consulting experience. He lives in Montgomery County Maryland.

Read the original:

Md. offshore wind projects may hurt, instead of help, environment - Baltimore Sun

Summer is in full swing at the Jersey shore. Over the next couple of months and into the fall, millions of visitors will head down the shore for the beaches, fishing, boating and ecotourism activities like whale and dolphin watching.

Its hard to imagine New Jersey without its thriving shore tourism economy an economy dependent on a healthy ocean and a clean coastline stretching from Sandy Hook to Cape May. The same goes for its commercial fishing industry, which supplies fresh seafood to countless restaurants and markets.

OCEAN CITY Cape May County has collected a variety of best beach awards over the years, an

But tourism and commercial fishing in New Jersey are once again being threatened by a bad idea that comes back again and again: ocean drilling for oil and gas along the coast of this state were in.

In April, President Trump signed an executive order reopening the possibility of drilling in the waters off the East Coast, including New Jersey. Then, on June 5, the Trump administration proposed to issue five permits for offshore seismic testing a first step to oil exploration.

Trumps executive order would undo an executive order signed by President Barack Obama last December that reinstated a moratorium on offshore drilling from Massachusetts to Virginia.

New Jerseys congressional delegation has objected strenuously to both the offshore drilling and seismic testing proposals.

With just under a month until Memorial Day weekend, New Jersey's beaches still sit largely empty.

In a letter to Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke, Congressman Frank Pallone, Senators Robert Menendez and Cory Booker, and seven other congressional representatives said drilling off the Atlantic Coast would have severe economic and environmental impacts on New Jersey.

Tourism along the Jersey shore generates almost $40 billion each year and supports half a million jobs including the fishing, boating and recreational industries, according to the letter. Allowing offshore drilling would unnecessarily threaten the economies of the communities that rely on a thriving coastline. Fragile marine ecosystems and species would also be placed in danger of a potential future environmental disaster resulting from a blowout or other failure offshore.

In a separate letter to the National Marine Fisheries Service, New Jerseys entire congressional delegation Democrats and Republicans alike expressed concern about the proposal to issue permits for seismic testing.

Seismic testing is not benign. Large air guns are towed behind ships, repeatedly firing loud blasts at the ocean floor. The sound waves produced by these blasts bounce back to the surface and help measure the presence of oil or gas.

These blasts are harmful.

Seismic testing can disrupt migratory patterns, cause marine wildlife to abandon important habitats and disrupt mating and feeding, the legislators said. The sound wave tests can also destroy fish eggs and larvae. These tests can also cause deafness in whales and dolphins, both of which rely on hearing to reproduce, locate food and communicate.

Two pieces of legislation have been introduced to stop offshore drilling. One would prevent the Trump administration from renewing the five-year oil and gas leasing process, while the other,known as the Clean Ocean and Safe Tourism, or COAST, Anti-Drilling Act, would permanently ban offshore drilling in the Atlantic Ocean.

These bills must become law. The severe harm that would occur from drilling and testing on marine fisheries and whale and dolphin populations is unacceptable. And a catastrophic oil spill would cause long-term degradation of New Jerseys beaches.

Organizations like Clean Ocean Action and the American Littoral Society have worked hard to protect our oceans for decades.

Citizens of New Jersey spent a lot of years cleaning up the ocean;we didnt do that to turn over our waters to big oil, said Tim Dillingham, executive director of the American Littoral Society. We know where we drill we spill, and thats unacceptable to the shore economies that depend on a clean ocean.

The economies of New Jersey and other coastal states depend heavily on tourism, which would fail without a healthy marine environment. In New Jersey alone, tourism and fishing industries bring in $50 billion a year and employ more than 500,000 people. Offshore drilling and seismic blasts must be permanently prohibited.

You can help. Contact your congressional representatives and let them know you fully support their efforts to permanently stop offshore drilling and seismic testing along the Atlantic Coast.

For more information about protecting the coasts see littoralsociety.org and cleanoceanaction.org.

For more information about preserving New Jerseys land and natural resources see njconservation.org or email Michele Byers at info@njconservation.org.

Originally posted here:

Ban offshore drilling and seismic testing off NJ coast - Shore News Today