Federal Court Rejects Challenge to California Vehicle GHG Regulations
WRI Report: Current Fuel Economy Proposals Will Not Reduce Overall GHG Emissions from Cars and Light Trucks Over the Long Term

ExxonMobil Plans Floating LNG Terminal 20 Miles Off NJ Coast

Exxon Mobil Corporation plans to seek regulatory approval for BlueOcean Energy, a floating liquefied natural gas (LNG) receiving terminal that will be anchored approximately 20 miles off the coast of New Jersey and about 30 miles off the coast of New York.

The floating terminal, with an LNG carrier alongside. The inset shows the approximate location. Click to enlarge.

The more than $1-billion project will have the capacity to supply about 1.2 billion cubic feet of natural gas per day, enough to meet the needs of more than five million residential consumers.

The BlueOcean Energy floating terminal will be anchored in about 150 feet of water. It is designed to receive LNG supplies from double-hulled LNG ships about twice a week, and store the LNG in insulated tanks inside the terminal’s double hull.

Heaters on the deck of the ocean terminal will warm the LNG to turn it back into natural gas for delivery to market through a new subsea pipeline to new and existing onshore natural gas pipelines. The pipeline routing will be determined during the permitting process.

ExxonMobil is emphasizing the security planning going into the project. BlueOcean Energy commissioned former New Jersey Attorney General John Farmer, a noted security expert and senior counsel to the 911 Commission, to conduct a safety and security assessment of the facility.

BlueOcean Energy is at the start of a lengthy permitting process involving state and federal agencies, as well as the general public.

In addition to BlueOcean Energy, ExxonMobil is involved in three other terminal projects. Receiving terminals are under construction near Sabine Pass, Texas; in Wales in the United Kingdom; and offshore Italy in the Adriatic Sea. With several years required for permitting, engineering and construction, BlueOcean Energy is expected to begin service around the middle of the next decade.



I read in Mother Earth News that in six days more solar energy(light energy) hits the earth than all of the known energy we have in reserve over the whole globe; that includes wind, water, coal, oil and gas.

If we put the investment in capturing the solar energy using reflectors. solar water heaters and solar cells, etc. we wouldn't need to mess with huge masses of dangerously explosive compressed gas. Has anyone published what a huge LNG explosion off the coast of New Jersey would do to the coastline? It can't be good and Hey! how would you like to be a sailor aboard A LNG ship sweating sparks.

OK, I'm waiting to hear from the LNG PR people about how safe they really are. But, I warn you I'm the kind of guy that thinks we don't need fossil energy of any kind.


Then you sir, are a fool.

If solar was/is so wonderful how is it that 90% + of our energy resources are fossil based.

In case you haven't worked it out yet, its because of CAPITAL EXPENDITURE.

dollar for dollar capex you will net a much higher flow of energy from a coal mine/oil field etc, than you will from a concentrating solar array/biofuels venture.

And that is why, for the last 250 years the human race has used fossil fuels, despite their (long list of) shortcomnings.

Environmentallists seem completely blind to things like capex, profit/loss, risk etc etc. It never ceases to amaze me that they have such a poor grasp of business practices. I have my suspicions its because so many of them moved over from the CND/hippy/communist type of political thinking. I could be wrong though.


Max Reid

This type of project is very much needed, since Oil supplies are becoming expensive.

Natgas is going to become a major source probably overtaking Oil in next 20-30 years.

Dear Lad : We have to increase the usage of solar power, but that does not mean that we should discourage LNG, since 100's of LNG tankers/terminals are there World over with many under construction/planning.

And with double hull, those tankers are much more safer than the current single-hull oil tankers.

We have to bring all sources of energy to meet the Worlds growing needs.

Jim G.

So environmentalists are "fools" who know nothing about economics?

The capital costs in solar and wind are not higher due to a law written in the stars. They relate to the current state of the technology and the infrastructure. These are cheap for fossil fuels today because large quantities of money and labor (and capital) have been committed to this purpose over centuries, and, today, a large pool of investors exist to keep investing profits back into that technology (e.g., this story).

Once sufficient investment has been made in wind, wave and solar technology, the capital costs will decline, and the operating costs will almost certainly be vastly lower than fossil fuels, as there will be no need to return to the mines to obtain more fuel, or to truck and barge and compress and decompress that heavy fuel all around the world.

There are also costs in burning fossil fuels that are not getting on the books now, because they are external to the party that's burning them, i.e, the climate change, environmental and health consequences of pollution. Wind, wave and solar do not have those costs. Once a decent carbon tax or trading scheme is in place, the relative cost of operating fossil fuel systems will become less attractive to investors, while the basic free capital market will remain intact underneath it all.

Just because we've been using fossil fuels for a long time doesn't mean they're the only way an investor can make money in energy. It may and in many cases does mean that the alternative is simply less profitable. That's why we're seeing lots of investors who already have lots of money from other industries, from Bill Gates, to the Google guys, to Vinod Khosla and Elon Musk and George Soros and Warren Buffett and T. Boone Pickens, and Richard Branson, investing in various alternative energy projects, because these folks' primary motivations now is not about making "the most" money to get rich, they are aiming to make some money, while putting sufficient investment into these technologies so that the capital costs will fall and these industries will become self-sufficient. They are putting large volumes of capital in. Don't assume that at the end all these folks expect all of these ventures to go belly up and lose them money.



Clearly, the whole point of putting the facility 20 miles offshore is to eliminate the potential safety, aesthetic and environmental impacts of a shoreline site. Do you really think an explosion 20 miles offshore would impact the shoreline? We're not talking about a nuclear bomb here.

I'm all for increasing reliance on renewables, but natural gas is easily the cleanest of the fossil fuels. Better this than dig up more coal to make electricity.

Max Reid

Jim G.
Your writing is appreciated, yes, the renewable like Wind & Sun are growing at 20% / year while Oil Consumption is growing at < 1 %

Interesting stats on wind.

But LNG is also a new fast growing technology and natgas is much cleaner than oil. This is needed to reduce US dependence on Foreign Oil.

While Oil will lose its share, the cleaner sources like nuclear, natgas, wind, solar, geo will increase.


If they are siting this 20 miles offshore, it might be feasible to add some wave and wind energy systems. The wind and wave conditions out there are as good as they get off NY and NJ.

_Tangential thought, heat up LNG by making liquid N2, Argon, O2, CO2, and other air derived liquefied gases. At least use sterling or other heat engines to make electricity while gasifying LNG.

20 miles offshore is pretty close to some restricted offshore military maritime/air training zones off the Northeast.


Thank you for the complement and I appreciate your passion, Others who have difficulty dealing with facts in a changing world have called me worse. But, perhaps name calling has a better forum for expression. I suggest a grammar school play yard.

In any case, I hope you read the excellent post here by Jim G. who has taken the time to explain the changes much better than I. And, I must tell you that my comments were meant to bate and arouse concern as our economy move from being fossil fuel reliant to solar dependent.

I myself like to look at Iceland as somewhat of a model of what can be achieved in a relatively short time when the government and the citizens all work toward a common clearly defined goal. We don't have that in our country presently and the county is actually divided along many political and economic interest lines. I look forward to new leadership in the white house next year. Leadership that can unite our people and move them to solve our energy problems for the good of the people.

And lastly, let me offer an apology for bating you to the point of frustration.

"The kind of Fool who cares for his country,"

Charles S

It's always back and forth when it comes to the politics of energy, but this platform could be a good starting point where the old and the new can work together.

I had a similar thought like that of allen_xl_z. What will power the platform? Various alternative energy project requires a higher upfront cost, but long term projects like this can easier recoup the cost quickly.

The transition from fossil fuels to renewable energy will be a gradual process, and the energy industry itself is a good starting point.


Time to fess up.

I'm an engineer. So I can read the numbers pretty quick. I don't care much for people's beliefs until they can show me the numbers. 250 years or so of industrialisation kind of proves me right about energy density/flows from sunk capital. Jim G seems to believe that its status quo thats keeping us from solar etc.

Well I've got news for you. The free market cares not whether something is good or bad for the environment (thats what legislation is for) all it cares about is the bottom line.

Currently solar isn't anywhere near as competitive as NG or coal. Not unless the environmental movement can artificially add costs (carbon tax) or geological supply constraints raise prices.

In the 1980s/90s in the UK the power generation mix turned rapidly from coal dominated to gas dominated. This was not because the govenment or environmental movement decreed that it should happen, it was because nat gas combined cycle power stations were cheap to build and run. And profitable.

The same would have happened with solar in the American south west by now if it was at all practical and profitable. The fact that it hasn't suggests that the technology isn't quite ready for prime time yet. The same large status quo energy companies will pounce on it the minute its profitable.

As it is, LNG (and other fossil sources) will be needed for some time yet.

Oh, and Jim G, there is a law written in the stars about capital costs of renewable energy systems. Its called the laws of physics and engineers worked out long that diffuse energy needs a disproportionately larger amount of equipment to capture it than concentrated forms. Hence the fossil fuel economy. Thats why its taken until the latter part of the 20th century to develop efficient enough equipment to gather it.

And Lad, Iceland is a terrible model for the US. Do you have any idea the size of the per capita (person) hydro/geothermal resource Iceland has? Its HUGE. The US doesn't even have 100th the per capita geo/hydro that Iceland does so I wouldn't try and convince an engineer that Icelands model is great. Sure it works for them, but as they say "its site specific".

I tire of environmentalists bleating on about "perfect" solutions whilst actively put the boot into anything that they don't approve of. I guess I was just pushed over the edge today. Going forward we're going to need all forms of power/energy. It would help if the technically illiterate stayed out of the media (and government but thats too much to hope). That last comment is not directed at anyone here.

Not long ago on the news here the enviro's were bleating on about a nuke life extension, complaining that we should be building more wind turbines. Quite apart from the fact that Scotland is busy building one of the largest onshore wind turbine parks anywhere in Europe. The point is we need a wide and diverse power grid, and I fear that the politicos may start to believe in some the more absurd hype that is beginning to fly around. But I digress.

Oh, and on the subject of LNG, have you seen this:


Let He Who Pays The Most Receive The Gas.




I agree with some of your points such as about fossil fuels being a more concentrated form of energy than most renewables. However, this is a one off energy bonanza for humanity. Once we hit peak oil business as usual scenarios will go down the drain. You seem to be agreeing that we need a different energy mix anyway.

Carbon taxes are not an artificial cost, just utilising the polluter pays principle. It is corporate avoidance of responsibility for pollution and not carbon taxes that are "artificial".

I see you share that peculiarly American hatred of government. It's a strange thing, my theory is that it goes back to when the British were the colonial power and wrung out too many tax dollars for their own good.

The market by itself is blind and needs to be steered by good government policy. The market has led us to the brink of environmental catastrophe and can't lead us out by itself. I'm sorry if that's offensive to you but government will need to be more involved not less.I don't think that the US federal government will continue down its current track into the future but if it does the US will find itself increasingly painted into a corner as the rest of the world moves on.

Oh yeah, I think the natural gas terminal isn't such a bad thing, though I'm suspicious that it's being hidden offshore.


Lad & Andy
Engineers like Andy and myself are often left holding the bag when a corporate officer or a politician orders us to do something that is technically impossible or financially unwise. I often reffered to the saying of that great Chinese philosopher, Confusius, who said that " everything is simple, but only to the simple minded".
It is a rainy dark day where I live and there is very little wind so your utopian solar and wind power would be resting comfortably with little or no output requiring a backup system of equal capacity.
We would all like to live in an America that produced virtually no pollutants and where all the electrical power was produced by solar, wind or controlled nuclear fusion and all the vehicles had Lithium Ion batteries that provided 300 mile range between charges. But that utopian world is still sometime away.
While it is OK to be passionate about environmentalism one must not treat it as a religeon where proof is not required and only your faith is your guide.
I want what is best for my country just as my ancestors did when they served at Valley Forge, the Battle of Monmouth and chased the indians away after the Wyoming Massacre. They fought for an ideal but they did not suffer fools. General Washington ultimately disposed of fools like Generals Lee and Gates.
General Washington carefully listened to his staff and considered all sides often leaving his own prejudices behind. That was a source of his greatness.


I'm going to disagree with you, Critta, on the idea that carbon taxes are not artificial. They most certainly are, in the sense that there is no empirical method of calculating what these costs are. They are merely assigned by the powers that be.
Secondly, the market is not blind. It is politically and ideologically neutral. It rewards, over the long term, the most economically prosperous methods, and punishes less effective methods. As we have seen the cost of oil rise, it is the market that pumps more money into alternate forms of energy.

Roger Pham

That's right, rca.
There will be a need for synthetic fuels like H2 and CH4(methane) produced from surplus solar and wind energy to put away for use in "rainy days" literally, like you are talking about. So, this cryo-LNG storage is still a very relevant investment for the renewable energy future.

The comments to this entry are closed.