Patrick demurred on questions over his stance on the proposals during his campaign last year, citing a need to become more familiar with the fishing industry's qualms with the projects and with other options for bringing energy into Massachusetts.
Rep. Anthony Verga, D-Gloucester, and Mayor John Bell met with the governor, along with state Environment and Energy Secretary Ian Bowles, in Boston to discuss the two terminals' impact on fishing and the mitigation package the two companies are required to pay should they become operational.
Jose Martinez, a spokesman for Gov. Deval Patrick, said the governor was interested in hearing what the Gloucester contingent had to say about the LNG ports.
"The mayor expressed concerns about the LNG (ports) and what the impact would be on the (fishing) fleet and his community," Martinez said. "The governor and secretary Bowles listened carefully."
Sen. Bruce Tarr, R-Gloucester, said he could not attend the meetings because he was in session but was later updated by the group at his office.
"Everyone left very enthused and looking forward to a new partnership," Tarr said.
In addition to giving Patrick an overall view of the issues regarding the LNG terminals, Tarr said the two main issues for Gloucester were the loss of fishing grounds and the need to have mitigation funds, if any, flow into the hands of those affected.
Bell, Tarr, Rep. Bradford Hill, R-Ipswich, New Bedford Mayor Scott Lang and a number of Plymouth, Barnstable and Bristol County state legislators requested this meeting with Patrick to discuss the condition of the commonwealth's fishing industry.
Former Gov. Mitt Romney approved the ports, proposed by Excelerate Energy and Suez Energy North America, on Dec. 19. Federal law gives the governor of the adjacent state veto power over deepwater liquefied natural gas ports. Both proponents and opponents of the project said last month Romney's approval removed the last substantial hurdle the projects face.
Patrick does not have the ability to undo Romney's decision.
Approvals from the state Executive Office of Environmental Affairs included a $12.6 million mitigation package for Gloucester fishermen expected to be economically hurt by the ports' locations in prime fishing territory. That money would go to a local nonprofit group that will be established to purchase and lease fishing permits to keep them in Gloucester should some fishermen decide to leave the industry.
Both terminals, which would be seven and 13 miles southeast of Gloucester Harbor, still require approval from the U.S. Maritime Administration. Sean T. Connaughton, the maritime administrator, told the Times last month that he expects a decision by mid-February.
Staff writer Julio Chuy contributed to this report.


