08-02-2013, 01:21 AM
'ArtM72' pid='26496' datel Wrote:Seems to me that loss of fishing area has a definable economic consequence (and thus reimbursable) AND a less definable benefit as a protected area for the development of a natural fishery. As to the serious concerns about sediment etc and the pipeline's impact on the fishery one need only consider the intensive pipeline development under the Gulf of Mexico that has existed for decades. Despite all of the yet the Gulf remains a huge and successful fishery for shrimp, oysters and of course many, many species of fish. So much for the long term impact of undersea pipelines. Presumably XOM has monitored the effects of their existing pipeline placement under/on(?) the ocean bed. My takeaway? Hey, we have an environmental impact statement completed that has been approved by the national government. However this works out, the environmental impact of the proposed seaport and associated facilities together with the population drawn to that economic center will potentially have much more far reaching consequences. Negative? Not necessarily, and certainly not with determination and resources.
Art, imo this is exaggerated. I have been studing the coastline, including gulf province specifically, and xom has been quite careful to adhere to environmental issues, including routing pipeline around sensitive maritime areas.