Over 60,000 Comments Submitted on Port Ambrose - Process Stalled!

Waves of thanks to all those who submitted comments against Port Ambrose LNG! A whopping 51 groups signed on to our comments and over 60,000 comments were sent in, in opposition of the project. A special thanks to Catie Tobin from Clean Ocean Action, Doug O’Malley from Environment New Jersey, Anthony Rogers-Wright from Environmental Action, Andrea Leshak from NRDC, and Matt Gove from Surfrider Foundation for putting together the 68 page comments against Port Ambrose. Due to the massive amount of comments and deficiencies with air quality and pipelines, the clock has been stopped on Port Ambrose. Although this is a victory, the fight is not over!

In reviewing the Coast Guard and Maritime Administration’s DEIS, Clean Ocean Action and the anti-LNG Coalition identified numerous flaws that underscore citizen concerns that the LNG port would be a target for terrorism; threaten fishing, jobs, and tourism; and would be a disaster for our climate. The identified flaws were outlined in our 68 page comments to the federal docket on behalf of the Anti-LNG Coalition, a bi-state (NY/NJ) coalition of community groups, maritime organizations, faith-based, union, and civic leaders opposed to LNG facilities. Some of the most egregious flaws found in the DEIS include:

1. The Energy Information Administration (EIA) stated natural gas imports will be near zero by 2018 and extend to 2040

2. According to a March 2015 EIA report, Asian LNG gas prices are currently at $7.45, which is down from $14 this October. However, these are higher than the 2014 US domestic prices – $4.39 in 2014, and expected prices- $3.07/MMBtu in 2015 and $3.48/MMBtu in 2016. More facts prove that the US will not import more expensive foreign LNG over domestic.

3. In gallons, the water used annually for operations alone would equal 1,167,487,020, to put this volume into perspective, it would fill an Olympic size pool 56 miles long every year.

4. Estimated entrainment for the construction phase of the facility is 44,027,806 eggs and 5,075,044 larvae of fish. Estimated annual entrainment during operation, emergency and maintenance activities of the facility is 40,070,732 eggs and 5,986,906 larvae. Estimated annual entrainment during decommissioning of the facility is 2,573,528 eggs and 296,648 larvae.” These eggs and larvae would contribute to the ecosystem, are essential to supporting the food web, and threaten to undermine the fisheries industry.

No Place for Liquefied Natural Gas Imports, or Port Ambrose, in New York's Energy Future

NYS 2014 Draft Energy Plan points to a diminishing need for LNG imports and ignores Port Ambrose altogether

On January 7, 2014, the New York State Energy Planning Board released its Draft 2014 New York State Energy Plan for public comment. The Draft Plan, which runs to over 600 pages, is a comprehensive assessment of every aspect of New York’s energy matrix, including supply, demand, and infrastructure needs for the next twenty years.  While the Plan suggests that natural gas will play an important role in the state’s energy future, it sees no role for imported liquefied natural gas (LNG); and although other infrastructure projects are considered in detail, it doesn’t even mention Port Ambrose, the proposed Deepwater Port that would be constructed off Long Island and import LNG into the metropolitan area.

In its few remarks on the subject, the Plan notes that the need for LNG imports has diminished and that they now (in 2012) account for “less than 1 percent of total U.S. natural gas.” The Plan goes on to warn that natural gas markets are shifting to exporting LNG – which could “cause price volatility in the future” and have a disruptive impact on New York energy costs.

So where does this leave Port Ambrose? “This is further evidence, if any were needed, that there isn’t any demonstrable need for LNG imports for Port Ambrose,” noted Sean Dixon, Coastal Policy Attorney with Clean Ocean Action; “in aiming for affordable energy, resiliency, and market-based solutions, LNG facilities are clearly inconsistent with NYS’s Energy Future.”

“New York State must reject the false promise of carbon based fuels as a bridge to a sustainable future and stand as a leader in creating a new energy economy based on renewable resources,” said Jeremy Samuelson, Executive Director of Concerned Citizens of Montauk. “Our energy future will reflect exactly what we incentivize.  Economic growth, environment protection and greater national security are the inevitable by-products an aggressive transition to renewable energy.”

“New York State’s Energy Plan offers further evidence that Port Ambrose is not viable as an LNG import facility,” said Bruce Ferguson of Catskill Citizens for Safe Energy.  “In all likelihood, if this project goes forward it will be used to export shale gas and that will inevitably lead to more fracking in the Northeast, and that’s something none of us want to see.”

A State Energy Plan is required under state law and is open for a 60-day public comment period.  As noted in the Board presentation and press release announcements on the readiness of the Draft Plan, there will also be six public hearings (in Buffalo, Syracuse, Albany, Manhattan, Brooklyn, and Long Island).

In June 2013, Liberty LNG’s proposed Port Ambrose LNG import facility application became active, triggering a year-long review process under the federal Deepwater Port Act.  Liberty LNG proposes building a port about 25 miles off of Jones Beach, NY, and a 20-mile pipeline which would connect with the existing offshore Williams-Transco pipeline just 2 miles off the coast of Atlantic Beach, NY.  Liberty LNG purports to be planning to use the facility strictly to import natural gas from the Gulf of Mexico and foreign nations.  Under federal law passed in December 2012, the license for this port could be amended to allow for natural gas exports.

The groups quoted above, along with an anti-Liberty LNG coalition of organizations from across the nation, continue to call on Governors Christie and Cuomo to exercise their statutory right to veto this proposal.  Such a veto, under the federal Deepwater Port Act, can be transmitted to the reviewing agencies (the Coast Guard and the Maritime Administration), at any time.

'Not Off Our Coast,' Says New Jersey Environment Committee

Today the New Jersey Senate Environment and Energy Committee unanimously passed a resolution opposing the proposed offshore liquefied natural gas (LNG) facility Port Ambrose.  Liberty Natural Gas is applying to build a facility that would be made of two floating buoys allowing LNG tankers to offload 17 miles south of Jones Beach.  Senate Resolution 120 calls on the Federal government as well as Governor Christie to deny Liberty Natural Gas’s application.

The resolution was introduced by Senator Jennifer Beck (R-11) along with an identical resolution in the Assembly (AR205) introduced by Assemblyman Sean Kean (R-30).  The resolutions are supported by 24 organizations in New Jersey who signed on to a letter urging the legislature to adopt the resolution.

“While we continue to pressure Governor Christie to veto Port Ambrose, it is just as imperative that the New Jersey Legislature is heard.” said Cindy Zipf, Clean Ocean Action Executive Director.  “This resolution sends a message to anyone who wants to industrialize the ocean that the Legislature and the people of New Jersey will stand up to defend their beaches, marine ecosystem, and coastal economy.  We are grateful for Senator Beck’s leadership on the issue and applaud the committee for voting unanimously to protect the ocean.”

In February of 2011, Governor Christie vetoed Liberty Natural Gas’s previous application for an offshore LNG facility with the proposed alternate location being the same as Port Ambrose’s current proposed location.  When Liberty attempted to side-step the Governor by amending the application to the alternate location the Governor re-affirmed the original veto.  In June, 2013, Liberty LNG applied again, seeking federal permission to build an LNG port in that alternate location.

In July 2013, the US Coast Guard accepted public comment on the proposal and received over 25,000 comments only 16 of which were in favor of the port.

Clean Ocean Action will continue to advocate for the passage of these legislative resolutions opposing offshore LNG hoping that AR205 will soon be brought up in the Assembly Environment and Solid Waste Committee and that SR120 will make its way to the Senate floor for a vote by the full chamber.

Federal Agencies Stop the "Clock" On Grossly Incomplete Application for Offshore LNG Port

Coalition claims short-term victory in fight against massive Liquefied Natural Gas Facility off NY/NJ Coast

The US Coast Guard just announced a 90-day hold on processing the proposed Liberty LNG “Port Ambrose” offshore deepwater liquefied natural gas facility due to a lack of critically important information, several major application deficiencies, and many unaddressed federal requirements.  The decision came three days after a letter requesting the stoppage was sent on behalf of a coalition of organizations which includes fishermen, coastal business owners, and environmental, civic, community, and religious groups opposed to the project.  The Clean Ocean Action-led coalition declared a short-term victory today with the announcement. 

“After three similar requests by this coalition –which represents the voices of over 130 organizations from around the region – the U.S. Coast Guard finally made the right decision,” said Andrew Provence, of Litwin and Provence, who sent the most recent request on October 18, 2013 [letter available online at http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=USCG-2013-0363-1015]. 

The announcement was made in a letter to Liberty Natural Gas dated October 21, 2013, which was posted yesterday on the project’s federal docket [http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=USCG-2013-0363-1018].  In the letter, the U.S. Coast Guard – the agency in charge of reviewing Liberty LNG’s application at this stage – cited over 100 new “data gaps” which needed to be addressed before review of the Port proposal could continue.  These 100 new items, which nearly doubled an already-unaddressed list of 150 other unique data gaps, ranged from calls for more information on water, air, sediment, and historic resources impacts this port would have to studies on how Superstorm Sandy would have affected the port.  The Coast Guard also called for information on how LNG port emergencies could affect shipping into and out of the Port of New York, and how this LNG facility stacks up when compared to the offshore wind farm proposed in New York (which could be entirely displaced by Port Ambrose, according to the federal agency in charge of permitting offshore wind).

Under the federal Deepwater Port Act, applications for LNG facilities in the ocean (like Port Ambrose) must be processed, from application submission to final agency approval, within 356 calendar days.  All public input, environmental review, and economic analyses of proposals happen within that timeframe in a 240-day “clock.”  This decision to “stop the clock” for Port Ambrose review was made after over half of the public’s review timeframe had already elapsed.

“Liberty LNG had already been scolded by the Coast Guard for submitting an application riddled with data deficiencies and information gaps,” noted Sean Dixon, Coastal Policy Attorney for Clean Ocean Action, “once the public and other federal agencies had a chance to review Liberty LNG’s proposal, even more holes and unverifiable claims were exposed.”

“The Coast Guard did the right thing when it 'stopped the clock' on Port Ambrose,” said Bruce Ferguson of Catskill Citizens for Safe Energy. “In announcing the delay, the Coast Guard made it clear that the delay is largely the fault of the project’s sponsor, which has failed to provide the government, or the public, with critical information needed to evaluate the project.”

“This is good news for the ocean,” said Cindy Zipf, Clean Ocean Action.  “Liberty Natural Gas will have to provide more information to government regulators and the public regarding the true impacts of its ill-conceived proposal.”

The coalition is continuing to call on Governors Christie and Cuomo to exercise their legal right to veto this proposal.  Such a veto, under the law, can be transmitted to the Coast Guard and the Maritime Administration (the other agency in charge of reviewing Liberty LNG’s application), at any time.

Landslide Citizen Opposition to Liquefied Natural Gas

Detailed Analysis Demonstrates Strong Support for Ocean,
Timeline for Project Not Stopped Despite Government Shutdown

Overall, out of a sea of over 25,350 comments submitted to the Liberty LNG - Port Ambrose docket, only 16 comments supported industrialization of the ocean. This broad opposition to Liberty LNG’s Port Ambrose came from concerned citizens across the United States whose input was solicited by the Maritime Administration and the U.S. Coast Guard as part of the federal government’s project review process. 

Since the close of the public comment period on August 22, Clean Ocean Action has been documenting and sorting through comments to quantify the overwhelming opposition.  Environmental concerns topped the list of reasons for opposing Port Ambrose with threats to marine life, water pollution and air pollution imminent with the construction and operation of the port. 

“We're not going to trade the future of the ocean, or for that matter the planet, for dirty, cheap energy; not on our watch,” proclaimed Rav Freidel, Director of Concerned Citizens of Montauk.

"WATERSPIRIT believes that water as the sustainer of all life is sacred. The risk of devastation to the life of the ocean and its inhabitants from Port Ambrose is high. The risk of LNG facilities in the ocean, in particular in the NY/NJ Bight, is a threat to important habitats of fish including endangered species. Additionally, this facility will likely be exposed to more frequent hurricanes, nor'easters, and wind and wave risks because of climate change, creating a significant security risk to the ocean, the NY/NJ Harbor and the people who live in these coastal areas. WATERSPIRIT agrees with the 25,000+ people and organizations whose comments were in opposition to the Port Ambrose Project," said Suzanne Golas, csjp WATERSPIRIT Director. 

In addition, “The partial shutdown of the federal government has shuttered the Coast Guard office handling Port Ambrose, yet the fast tracking of the project continues.  When Coast Guard officials return to work, they should immediately extend the 240 day project review period to account for the days lost to political gridlock,” said Jill Wiener of Catskill Citizens for Safe Energy, a grassroots organization that submitted more than 5,400 letters opposing Port Ambrose.

“The fact that a whole month after the public comment period had closed the federal government is still uploading letters and comments speaks to how opposed to this project the public really is,” stated Clean Ocean Action Ocean Advocacy and Education Fellow Catie Tobin. 

Skepticism regarding the number of jobs that will be created and the desire of Liberty LNG to export natural gas were also major concerns raised.  By Liberty’s own projections, just 6 permanent jobs would be created for manning the port, even though impacts to tourism, fisheries, renewable energy jobs, and commerce would be put on the line.  Although the company claims the port will be used solely for imports, the overwhelming majority of project scoping comments argued that it will eventually lead to exports and increased hydraulic fracturing – two impacts that should be analyzed front and center.

“This project will adversely impact people throughout the region because there seems to be little doubt that if Port Ambrose is built it will be used to exported shale gas, and that means increased fracking in Pennsylvania and Ohio, and it could well open up New York State to fracking”, said Bruce Ferguson of Catskill Citizens for Safe Energy.

“After all that the Jersey and Long Island shores have been through since Hurricane Sandy, that last thing costal residents need now is the prospect of a huge natural gas disaster looming just offshore,” said Jim Walsh, Eastern Region Director of Food & Water Watch. “Further, this proposal will undoubtedly lead to gas exportation, which would require more dangerous and destructive fracking here at home; it's not fair to the residents of our region,” Walsh concluded.

“If energy independence is our national goal, then neither imports nor exports are in our national interest,” said Bob Bennekamper, concerned citizen from Brick Township, New Jersey.

Environmental, economic, and security concerns were raised by New Jersey Governor Christie when he vetoed Liberty Natural Gas’s last attempt to construct an LNG facility offshore in 2011, and reaffirmed his veto for an alternate location (Port Ambrose’s current proposed location) in 2012.  Both Governor Christie and Governor Cuomo can veto the current project, which is governed by the federal Deepwater Port Act.  Groups are now mobilizing to put pressure on both Governors to veto.

“Given the myriad reasons this Port shouldn’t be built, the scores of data gaps, inadequate studies, and outdated energy analyses identified by thousands of concerned citizens across the nation, the federal agencies reviewing this proposal should stop officially processing the application until these questions are answered,” said Sean Dixon, Coastal Policy Attorney with Clean Ocean Action, who, with other organizations in this coalition, has submitted multiple requests to the federal government for a ‘stopped clock’ on this proposal’s review.  Under the Deepwater Port Act, application review, once initiated, is only open for public involvement for a 240 day clock.  “We’re over 100 days into this Port’s processing, yet the ‘clock’ wasn’t stopped on this project before the federal government shut-down,” continued Dixon; “this is a significant failure in good governance that will lead to the voice of the public being curtailed and ignored.”

For more information, visit www.cleanoceanaction.org. 

Tell the Truth about LNG!

Do you think there are two sides to the Port Ambrose story? We don't think so!

• Check out the NJ.com article: Christie signals Port Ambrose Jersey Shore LNG project could be vetoed and voice your opinion in the comments section at the bottom. Tell the truth about LNG!

Governor Christie and Long Branch Mayor Adam Schneider (in his COA sea level rise t-shirt!)
 in Long Branch on Wednesday, August 28. Photo Credit: Christopher Robbins/NJ.com

• Governor Chris Christie’s end-of-summer Shore tour wraps up with walks on the boardwalk in Bradley Beach at 11 a.m. today and Seaside Heights at 3 p.m. -- Remind him to stand Jersey Strong and oppose Port Ambrose! 

Public Expresses Overwhelming Opposition to LNG Port in Coastal Waters

Over 10,000 Comments 

Submitted in Opposition to Port Ambrose

Ever since Liberty Natural Gas first proposed constructing a liquefied natural gas (LNG) port in New York and New Jersey waters, the project has engendered a storm of opposition and received almost no public support. Today, as the public comment period draws to a close, the extent of this opposition can be seen in the thousands of comments that have been submitted to the Maritime Administration. Catie Tobin of Clean Ocean Action has been closely monitoring the government website, and she reports that as of this morning only 12 out of more than 10,000 comments express support for the project.

As expected, much of the opposition stems from concerns that the port would create air and water pollution and harm marine life, including endangered species, and would exclude fishermen from prime fishing grounds. Others have expressed concern that the facility would be an attractive terrorist target, and that it could disrupt shipping to and from the Port of New York. These hazards and more were identified by New Jersey Governor Chris Christie when he vetoed this project in 2011 and reaffirmed his veto in 2012. The federal Bureau of Ocean Energy Management noted that the port could interfere with the construction of an offshore wind farm proposed for the same location.

Claudia Borecky, of the Coalition of Nassau Civic Associations, says, "Our south shore communities are still struggling to recover from Superstorm Sandy. Siting an LNG port off our coast would stress our communities to the breaking point."

Matt Gove, Mid-Atlantic Policy Manager for Surfrider, adds, “Our thousands of members in New York and New Jersey are strongly opposed to the Port Ambrose LNG project. It is dangerous and unnecessary, and not worth the risk it presents to our economically and recreationally critical coastal ecosystems and communities"

But not all of the opposition to Port Ambrose comes from coastal areas.  Bruce Ferguson is with the all-volunteer Catskill Citizens for Safe Energy, which has been working to prohibit high volume fracking in New York State. He is concerned that the proposed LNG port will be used to export fracked gas overseas. “The project sponsor and the Maritime Administration insist that Port Ambrose will only be used to import LNG from abroad, but that doesn’t make any economic sense. Foreign gas companies are unlikely to ship LNG to the United States facility, since natural gas prices are three-to-five times higher in Europe and Asia. I have no doubt that if Port Ambrose is built, it will be used to export fracked gas overseas, and that could have a devastating effect on New York, Pennsylvania and Ohio.” Catskill Citizens submitted more than 5,400 comments on the proposed port; many of them were about fracking related “upstream impacts” of fracking.

“It is clear that Port Ambrose is not in the public’s interest,” said Cindy Zipf, Executive Director of Clean Ocean Action.  “Our organization has described the many adverse safety, environmental, economic, and cumulative impacts in 127 pages of detailed comments we are submitting to the Maritime Administration.”  Zipf points out that the governors of both New York and New Jersey have the authority to unilaterally prevent Port Ambrose from being built. “It would be a great end-of-the-summer gift to all of us if our governors would keep our ocean safe for tourists, fishermen, commerce and the future by officially vetoing the project.” 

Port Ambrose (US) & Port Meridian (UK): The Untold Tale of Two Ports

Despite Claims about Imports, Corporate Connections Expose Export Future for Proposed Facility Offshore of New York & New Jersey Coast That Would Devastate the Region

Groups urge companies to come clean about their intent to export

A triangle of corporate connections makes clear the link between natural gas imports and exports for the proposed Liberty LNG Port Ambrose facility off the New York and New Jersey coast.  That was the evidence presented today by Clean Ocean Action, Catskills Citizens for Safe Energy, and the Coalition of Nassau County Civic Associations, along with many others in the broadly-based Anti-Liberty LNG coalition. 

This coalition called on Liberty LNG’s owners, West Face Capital (a Cayman Islands investment account), and project lead Roger Whelan, to come clean on the corporate energy interests of Liberty LNG’s owners that have not been disclosed to the public or to the federal agencies reviewing the port in the application.

Across the nation, energy companies by the dozen are lining up to export U.S. domestically produced natural gas – over two dozen companies have already been granted authorizations by the Department of Energy – and, under the law governing Port Ambrose simple written permission from the federal government is all that would be needed to change an import facility license to an export license.

West Face Capital, and Port Ambrose project lead Roger Whelan, have thus far failed to disclose a significant interest in another port – a facility that appears to have been built with Port Ambrose exports in mind.  Last November, Roger Whelan announced, on behalf of West Face Capital, the purchase of “Port Meridian” – a deepwater port of the exact same design as Port Ambrose.  This port, already approved for construction, anticipated to come online around the same time as Port Ambrose, would be operated by Höegh LNG – the exact same company and fleet of LNG vessels as Port Ambrose.

Höegh LNG, the partner in operations with West Face Capital, is the self-proclaimed global leader in floating liquefaction (“FLNG” - the technology needed to liquefy natural gas on a vessel moored at a Port Ambrose- and Port Meridian-style “turret buoy”); the Höegh LNG website claims: “no FLNG service provider has the same competences and capacity” and that Höegh LNG has invested over 400,000 engineering man-hours in developing this technology.

“West Face Capital bought a facility in the United Kingdom (a nation starved of natural gas supplies), and a facility in the United States (a nation where exports are being approved at a staggering rate), and set up Höegh LNG (a company leading the world in liquefaction at-sea from the same turret “STL” buoys which would be in place at both Port Ambrose and Port Meridian) to operate both ports,” summarized Sean Dixon, Coastal Policy Attorney at Clean Ocean Action.  “The evidence clearly points to this Cayman Island bank account’s plan to send U.S. natural gas overseas through its own energy bridge.” 

“While Port Ambrose and the federal government continue to claim that the sole intended use of the facility would be imports, reality is that this is a ‘bait and switch,’” warned Clean Ocean Action Executive Director Cindy Zipf.  “For the American people, our safety, our quality of life, and our environment, the stage is set for disaster if Port Ambrose is licensed.”

“Although Port Ambrose is being sold to the public as an LNG import facility, there is abundant evidence that it will actually be used to export fracked gas overseas, given that there is no viable market for imported LNG in New York City or on Long Island - I have no doubt that the current license application for an LNG import facility is a Trojan horse,” stated Bruce Ferguson with Catskills Citizens for Safe Energy.  “If Port Ambrose is licensed and used to export fracked gas, the ‘upstream impacts’ of fracking will devastate a broad swath of the Northeast, leaving Americans with contaminated drinking water, contaminated air and the destruction of important, sustainable economic industries such as agriculture and tourism. And for what? So other countries can be supplied with cheap energy, and so a foreign corporation can make a killing.”

“Keeping in mind that Nassau's south shore communities are still struggling to rebuild after Superstorm Sandy, situating an exporting liquefaction facility less than 19 miles off our southern coast would stress recovering communities to the breaking point if the facility were to be damaged by a severe storm, cautioned Claudia Borecky, LNG Port Committee Chair at Coalition of Nassau Civic Associations.  “In recent weeks, LNG facilities in Yemen were reportedly on Al Queda's target list.  Situating an exporting liquefaction facility at the entrance of one of the busiest harbors in the United States would place our entire region at risk for a terrorist attack.”

Comments on the proposal are due Thursday, August 22, 2013, to the federal docket (USCG-2013-0363-0181) at www.regulations.gov.

Related Links:

1.       Read an article about the sale of Port Meridian by Höegh LNG to West Face Capital (along with quote from Project Lead Roger Whelan), HERE

2.       Read a story about the sale price of Port Meridian, HERE

3.       See Höegh LNG’s claims about floating natural gas liquefaction (including at “disconnectable turrets” like those proposed at both Ports Ambrose and Meridian), HERE

"We don’t want to risk becoming the next Gulf Coast" - Jersey Shore Partnership on Port Ambrose

The following is a letter sent by Margot Walsh, Executive Director of the Jersey Shore Partnership, voicing her opposition to the Liberty Natural Gas project Port Ambrose.  With three days left until the end of the public comment period on Thursday, August 22, make sure your voice is heard too and your comment is submitted to the docket here.

"I am writing on behalf of the Jersey Shore Partnership, a bipartisan, not-for-profit organization whose mission is to protect and preserve our beaches for the health and safety of all our citizens. We request that you to reject Liberty Natural Gas’s application to create a port off the coast of New York and New Jersey.  Twenty-five million (one out of every 11) people in New Jersey and adjoining states live within 50 miles of the Jersey Shore.

The Jersey Shore contributes $19 billion a year to New Jersey’s tourism economy – one-half the total tourism revenue.  Shore related businesses from restaurants, boutiques, real estate, boating, commercial fishing, boardwalk entertainment are still struggling to get back on their feet after Superstorm Sandy.  The coastal economy from Cape May, New Jersey to Montauk, New York is dependent up a clean pollution-free ocean and safe recreational beaches.  By building a fossil fuel facility, Liberty Natural Gas will threaten the stability and resiliency of our fragile coastline, endanger residents that live in our coastal areas, and put our tourism industry at risk.

I also ask you to consider the impact of changing weather patterns that are creating increasingly intense and frequent storms along the northeast coast.  Global warming and sea level rise are imminent realities. If LNG tankers were offshore when Superstorm Sandy barreled up the Atlantic, devastation from the storm could have been much worse, considering wave heights offshore of 30 feet near the proposed location of the port.  We are not naive enough to believe that we have seen the end of Sandy-like storms.

We don’t want to risk becoming the next Gulf Coast.  New Jersey Governor Chris Christie recognized this threat when he vetoed the previous proposal from Liberty Natural Gas.    The Jersey Shore Partnership respectfully requests that you also reject LNG’s proposal."

The Jersey Shore Partnership was founded after the Halloween storm of 1991 as an advocate of initiatives and issues that are unique and important to the New Jersey coastal communities with an emphasis on shore protection and beach replenishment. The Partnership takes an active role in New Jersey’s economy including tourism, coastal resources, vital infrastructure, education and emergency preparedness, and works to promote sustainable coastal communities. Additional information about the Partnership and shore issues can be found at the Partnership's website, www.thejerseyshorepartnership.com.

Oppose Offshore LNG: Public Comment Deadline August 22 - Sample Comments Below

CLICK HERE to submit your comments to the federal government opposing Liberty Natural Gas's offshore LNG facility called Port Ambrose.  See below for sample topics and comments opposing the project.  Feel free to use the language and facts and make sure to personalize it.  Share this link with friends and family.

For organizations:  we also have a sample newsletter written below to include in your group's newsletter or online publication.  Please feel free to share!

Template 1: Security

To whom it may concern:

My name is ___________ and I am a resident of ____________.   I am writing to express my opposition to Liberty Natural Gas’s application to create a dangerous LNG port just offshore of the most densely populated metropolitan area in our nation.

In addition to the impacts Port Ambrose will have on the environment, commercial and recreation fishing industries, and the coastal tourism industry, my main concern is the security and safety of region.  Tankers filled with explosive gas just miles offshore would no doubt be recognized as a potential target and threat to national security.  An attack on a floating LNG vessel or port at the entrance to one of the busiest ports in the world would cripple the region and put countless lives in danger. 

New Jersey Governor Chris Christie recognized this threat when he vetoed a previous identical proposal from Liberty Natural Gas saying, “the Liberty project would create a heightened risk in a densely developed region, including potential accidents or sabotage disrupting commerce…” Please heed Governor Christie’s warning and reject Liberty’s application for the safety and security of the region.  I appreciate your time and attention to this matter.

Sincerely,

Template 2: Jobs/Coastal Economy

To whom it may concern:

My name is ___________ and I am a resident of ____________.   I am writing to ask that you reject Liberty Natural Gas’s application to create a hazardous LNG port just offshore of the most densely populated metropolitan area in our nation.

While Liberty Natural Gas claims the Port Ambrose proposal will create thousands of jobs, I believe this to be misleading.  According to Liberty’s application, Port Ambrose would generate only six to 10 permanent land-based jobs after the port’s construction.  I don’t believe putting our environment and coastal economies at risk are worth 6 permanent jobs, four more if the port gets deliveries (which similar ports in Boston haven’t gotten in years, and one just shut down because of inaction).

The coastal economy from Cape May, New Jersey to Montauk, New York is dependent upon a clean, pollution-free ocean.  By building a dirty fossil fuel facility, Liberty Natural Gas will put the recreation and commercial fishing industries as well as the local tourism industry at risk.  For example, the port will exclude commercial and recreational fishermen from high-value ocean areas during both construction and operation.  Also, in the event of a spill, accident, or explosion, there would undoubtedly be effects on the boating, diving, shipping and tourism uses of the ocean.  All of these industries, on top of this Liberty Natural Gas threat, are still struggling to get back on their feet after Superstorm Sandy.

Please don’t let the Long Island South Shore and the Jersey Shore become the next Gulf Coast: riddled with failed fossil fuel facilities and diminishing coastal economies.

Sincerely,

Template 3: Environmental Impacts

To whom it may concern:

My name is ___________ and I am a resident of ____________.   I am writing to express my opposition to Liberty Natural Gas’s application to create the first dirty fossil fuel facility in the New York Bight. 

In addition to land-based environmental implications, security concerns, and economic shortcomings of this project, I oppose Port Ambrose because of the detrimental effects construction and maintenance will have on the marine environment.  First, the creation of the pipeline connecting the port to the existing transcontinental pipeline will dredge up over 20 miles of seafloor that contain critical marine life on which the ecosystem relies.  Additionally, the proposed port would discharge 3.5 million gallons of chemically-treated seawater used for pipe tests back into the water.  With the seawater intake for ballast, potential open loop thermal pollution, closed loop thermal pollution, and the potential for wastewater, stormwater, and accidental or incidental discharges ever-present in addition to dredging and chemical pipe test discharges, the negative impacts on the offshore environment are clear. 

Lastly, I would like to raise the issue of the increasingly intense and frequent storms that the New York Bight is exposed to.  If LNG tankers were offshore when Superstorm Sandy barreled up the Atlantic, devastation from the storm could have been made much worse, considering wave heights offshore reached over 30ft, near the proposed location of the port.  The people of New York and New Jersey need to be exposed to the potential dangers of what an offshore LNG facility in the middle of a Hurricane could mean.

I appreciate your time and attention to this matter, and ask that you reject Liberty’s proposal.

Sincerely,

Template 4: Bait and Switch

To whom it may concern:

My name is ___________ and I am a resident of ____________.   I am writing to express my opposition to Liberty Natural Gas’s application to create the first dirty fossil fuel facility in the New York Bight. 

 Liberty Natural Gas, despite being proposed as an “import” facility, can legally petition the government to switch to exports once it has a license for imports – this bait and switch process wouldn’t trigger any public input, any further review, or any notice.  It is for this reason that I believe Liberty Natural Gas CEO Roger Whelan’s claims and Liberty Natural Gas’s application to be disingenuous.  With the price of natural gas overseas skyrocketing to levels six times higher than prices here, it only makes financial sense that a natural gas company would want this facility to export natural gas.  Liberty switching to exports, or even selling to another company that switches the license to exports, would lead to an increase in local demand for shale gas and ramped-up fracking in the region. 

Our nation is too dependent on fossil fuels and dirty energy instead of focusing on renewable energy sources.  This port, if for imports, would lead to higher gas prices as we would have to compete with higher buyers overseas.  If for exports, which could be easily achieved once a license was secured, this port will surely drive up our gas prices and trigger an explosion of fracking – and the environmental impacts that result therefrom.  Neither use of the port is in the interests of the people of the region.

I appreciate your time and attention to this matter, and ask that you reject Liberty’s proposal.

Sincerely,

Template 5: Energy Costs

To whom it may concern:

My name is ___________ and I am a resident of ____________.   I am writing to express my opposition to Liberty Natural Gas’s Port Ambrose application and to ask you to reject the proposal based on economic reasons.

This port, be it for imports or exports, would raise energy costs in the region.  The price for imported LNG is higher overseas, so If Liberty imports natural gas, they will be paying more for foreign fossil fuels.  To make a profit, they would have to sell the gas in the region at a higher rate.

If the port eventually exports natural gas, as is most likely because of the price tag for LNG overseas,  the demand and therefore price for domestic gas would increase as most of the gas would be shipped overseas.

The bottom line is, if this port is for imports: we don’t need it.  If it is for exports: we don’t want it.

I appreciate your time and attention to this matter.

Sincerely,

___________________

Sample Newsletter Article - August 2013

This past June, the United States Maritime Administration announced that Liberty LNG has again applied to build a Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) facility off the coast of New York and New Jersey.  The project, called “Port Ambrose,” would host massive natural gas tankers and will  lead to an acceleration of hydraulic fracturing in the northeast by opening up a gateway for LNG exports.  This project is the same project previously vetoed by Governor Christie in 2011; it may have a new name, but it is in the same place, and has the same impacts, dangers, and drawbacks. (Clean Ocean Action’s factsheet on the port is attached.)

The proposed location for the LNG port would directly interfere with the proposed New York State offshore wind lease area identified by the federal Bureau of Ocean Energy Management.  Additionally, in the past, LNG ports proposed in the NY/NJ Bight were met with vehement opposition from community and civic organizations, commercial and recreational fishing interests, faith based organizations, conservation and environmental groups, and thousands of concerned members of the public, including New Jersey’s Governor.  For this latest application, the coalition of interests aligned against Liberty LNG has grown.  During the July public hearings, hundreds of concerned citizens filled hearing rooms in Long Beach, New York, and Edison, New Jersey, and the beach in Sea Bright, New Jersey to voice their continued opposition to offshore industrialization.

If you are interested in joining thousands of citizens and the Governor of New Jersey in opposing Liberty LNG’s plans to put a hazardous industrial facility just off our beaches,  we ask that you go on the record in opposition of “Port Ambrose” by submitting official “comments” to the federal agency in charge of licensing these ports.  Comments and statements in support of clean ocean uses like fishing and tourism, and in opposition to this specific threat to our region’s economy, security, and environment, will be considered until August 22nd.  Public comments can be submitted online at http://goo.gl/7ye6uh or submitted by mail to the following address: Department of Transportation, Docket Management Facility, West Building, Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590–0001.

If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to call Clean Ocean Action at 732-872-0111 or email citizens@cleanoceanaction.org.  Thank you for your time and attention to this urgent matter.

"Unacceptable" LNG Plan

For more information about the LNG threat, check out the editorial in The Asbury Park Press today:

They’re baaaaaacck!
Liberty Natural Gas, in a remarkable display of chutzpah, last week announced public meetings to discuss building a deepwater natural gas port 27 miles off Long Branch. It is similar to a plan submitted two years ago, which was vetoed by Gov. Chris Christie. The same fate should befall this revised proposal. Read more

Time Out on LNG

ONE HUNDRED AND THIRTY SIX ORGANIZATIONS 
ASK FORMORE TIME TO ASSESS PROPOSED LNG PORT

Today, one hundred and thirty six environmental and public advocacy groups sent a letter to the Maritime Administration asking that the public be given more time to consider and comment on a propose liquefied natural gas (LNG) port that would be constructed in the waters off Long Island and the Jersey Shore. After the application was announced on June 14, the project sponsor subsequently released fifteen hundred pages of a four thousand plus page application that federal agencies have found to be still incomplete in more than one hundred and fifty specific areas. Despite the length, technical complexity, and incomplete nature of the material, the public is required to read, analyze and meaningfully comment on the application by July 23.

Sean Dixon, Coastal Policy Attorney at Clean Ocean Action said, “This LNG port will adversely impact the economies and ecologies depended upon by millions of Americans and the public deserves the opportunity to give it careful consideration.”  Dixon noted that New Jersey Governor Chris Christie vetoed this proposal in 2011 (and reaffirmed it in 2012) because, according to the Governor’s original veto (attached to this press release), it “ would present unacceptable and substantial risks to the State’s residents, natural resources, economy and security… stifle investment in renewable energy technologies by increasing our reliance on foreign sources… [and] create a heightened risk in a densely developed region, including potential accidents or sabotage disrupting commerce in the Port of New York and New Jersey.” Dixon notes that “this application is for the same port that was wrong for the people and economies of New York and New Jersey last year, and the year before that; Liberty may be back, but nothing has changed.”

Bruce Ferguson of Catskill Citizens for Safe Energy is concerned that construction of an LNG terminal could lead to increased shale gas extraction, or “fracking”. “I’m well aware that the sponsor says that the proposed port will be used to import LNG from abroad, but there is nothing in the law that can prevent the sponsor, or a future owner of the port, from using it to ship fracked shale gas to Europe and Asia.” Ferguson also noted that the United States will soon become a net exporter of natural gas and that existing import facilities are being revamped to handle exports.

The Maritime Administration has scheduled just two public hearings on the proposal, the minimum allowed by law:

New York State

Tuesday, July 9

Open House: 4:30pm - 5:30pm

Hearing: 6:00pm - 8:00pm

Allegria Hotel

80 West Broadway, Long Beach, NY

(516) 889-1300

New Jersey

Wednesday, July 10

Open House: 4:30pm - 5:30pm

Hearing: 6:00pm - 8:00pm

NJ Convention and Exposition Center

97 Sunfield Avenue, Edison, NJ

(732) 417-1400

Clean Ocean Action is also hosting a “Citizens” Hearing – open to all – the next day, on July 11:

Citizens’ Hearing

Thursday, July 11

Rally Against LNG: 4:30pm - 5:30pm

Hearing: 6:00pm - 8:00pm

Sea Bright, NJ,  Public Beach

(732) 872-011

“Residents of the entire region have grave concerns over this proposed LNG port that could easily be converted to facilitate gas exports instead of imports. This likely conversion would increase demand throughout the Northeast for dangerous pipelines and fracking, and disrupt families' lives for hundreds of miles,” said Emily Wurth, Water Program Director at Food & Water Watch. “Residents of many states deserve numerous public hearings to voice their concerns about this ill-advised plan.”

“We are affirming the request for additional public hearings and an extension for the public comment period for the ‘Port Ambrose’ project in the interest of the general public’s health, safety and the rights of the public to comment on this application; this port is a threat to the ocean, marine life, and ecosystems that sustain us all,” said Suzanne Golas, csjp, Director of WATERSPIRIT.  “As the Maritime Administration is charged with ‘meeting the country’s maritime commercial mobility while supporting the national security and protecting the environment,’ we find this request for additional public hearings and an extension for the public comment period clearly within the scope of the Maritime Administration’s responsibility to ensure comprehensive and adequate input from the general public while reviewing this application.”

The 130 organizations that signed on to a letter to the Maritime Administration asking that the public be given more time to consider and comment on a propose liquefied natural gas (LNG) port that would be constructed in the waters off Long Island and the Jersey Shore are as follows:

Matt Smith	350NJ
Lyna Hinkel	350NYC
Ryan Talbott	Allegheny Defense Project
Christopher Huch	Alliance for a Living Ocean (ALO)
Tim Dillingham	American Littoral Society
Sandy Batty	ANJEC
Stephen A. Sanders	Appalachian Citizens' Law Center, Inc.
Don Torino	Bergen County Audubon Society
Karen Feridun	Berks Gas Truth
Kevin Kamps	Beyond Nuclear
Tracy Sides PhD, MPH	Bravely Be
Charlotte Phillips, M.D.	Brooklyn For Peace
Kathy Maher	Bus for Progress
Daniel Morrissey	Capital District Against Fracking
Wes Gillingham	Catskill Mountainkeeper
Bruce Ferguson	Catskills Citizens for Safe Energy
Rose Braz	Center for Biological Diversity
Kenneth Fogarty	Chenango Community Action for Renewable Energy
Allen Johnson	Christian for the Mountains
John Jongen	Citizens' Alliance for a Pristine Perinton (CAPP)
Barbara Warren	Citizens' Environmental Coalition
Joe Levine	Citizens for Water
Nathan Kipnis	Citizens' Greener Evanston
Isaac Silberman-Gorn	City of Binghamton Residents Against Hydrofracking
Cindy Zipf	Clean Ocean Action
Harriet Shugarman	ClimateMama
Vernon Haltom	Coal River Mountain Watch
Martha Cameron	Coalition Against the Rockaway Pipeline
Arthur H. Kopelman, Ph. D.	Coastal Research and Education Society of Long Island
David F. Slottje	Community Enviornmental Defense
Suzy Winkler	Concerned Burlington Neighbors
Jeremy Samuelson	Concerned Citizens of Montauk
Cheryl Cary	Concerned Residents of Madison County
Mina Takahashi	Concerned Residents of Oxford
Edie Ehlert	Crawford Stewardship Project
Fay Muir	Croton Watershed Clean Water Coalition
B. Arrindell	Damascus Citizens for Sustainability
Maya K. van Rossum	Delaware Riverkeeper Network
Deborah Goldberg	Earthjustice Northeast Office
Jennifer Krill	Earthworks
Ken Gale	Eco-Logic, WBAI-FM
Robert Spiegel	Edison Wetlands Association
Doug Couchon	Elmirans and Friends Against Fracking
Doug O'Malley	Environment New Jersey
Eric Whalen	Environment New York
Katherine Nadeau	Environmental Advocates of New York
Heather White	Environmental Working Group
Ted Glick	Essex/Passaic Green Party
John Malizia	Fishermen's Conservation Association
Jimmy Lovgren	Fishermens Dock Co-Op
Jim Walsh	Food & Water Watch
Marc W. McCord	FracDallas
Julia Walsh	Frack Action
Cynthia Carestio	Frack Free Genesee
Shane Davis	Fractivist.com
Albert Crudo	Friends of Sustainable Sidney
Sheila Cohen	Gas Drilling Awareness for Cortland County
Josh Fox	Gasland & Gasland Part II
Alan Muller	Green Delaware
Captain Bill Sheehan	Hackensack Riverkeeper
Bo Lipari	Hector Clean Waters
Alma Hasse	Idaho Concerned Area Residents for the Environment
Dan Mundy	Jamaica bay Ecowatchers
Suzanne Tallichet	Kentuckians for the Commonweath
Marcia Halligan	Kickapoo Peace Circle
Rev. Nancy Kasper	Lakeshore Environmental Action
Sally Robinson	League of Women Voters of NY
Toni Zimmer	League of Women Voters of NJ
Shelley DePaul	Lenape Nation of Pennsylvania
Fred Harding	Maiden Rock Concerned Citizens
Margo Pellegrino	Miami2Maine
Capt. Rick Etzel	Montauk Boatman, Inc. (MBI)
David Denenberg	Nassau County
Ida Sanoff	Natural Resources Protective Association (NRPA)
Judy Triechel	Nevada Nuclear Waste Task Force
Glenn A. Arthur	New Jersey Council of Diving Clubs (NJCDC)
David Pringle	New Jersey Environmental Federation
JK Canepa	New York Climate Action Group
Cathleen Breen	New York Public Interest Research Group (NYPIRG)
David Braun	New Yorkers Against Fracking
Julia Somers	NJ Highlands Coalition
Claudia Borecky	North and Central Merrick Civic Association
Deborah A. Mans	NY/NJ Baykeeper
Donna Stein	NYC Friends of Clearwater
Buck Moorhead	NYH20
Patrick Robbins & Kim Fraczek	Occupy the Pipeline
Janet Keating	Ohio Valley Environmental Coalition
Peter Bergel	Oregon PeaceWorks
Marianne Waldow	OWS Environmental Solidarity
Lawrence Hamm	People's Organization For Progress
Kevin F. Lind	Powder River Basin Resource Council
Randy Hurst	Protect Orange County
Iris Marie Bloom	Protecting Our Waters
Bill Schultz	Raritan RIVERKEEPER
Gordian Raacke	Renewable Energy Long Island
Len Bjorkman	Residents Against Fracking Tioga (RAFT)
Bill Podulka	Residents Opposing Unsafe Shale-Gas Extraction (ROUSE)
Robert Cross	Responsible Drilling Alliance (RDA)
Kate Hudson	Riverkeeper, Inc.
Anna Sears & Nedra Harvey	Rochesterians Concerned About Unsafe Shale-gas Extraction (R-CAUSE)
Carol Barnett & Jordan Kleiman	Rush Citizens Concerned about Hydrofracking
Karen London	SACRED (Sullivan Area Citizens for Responsible Energy Development)
Clare Donohue	Sane Energy Project
Gail Musante	Sanford-Oquaga Area Concerned Citizens (S-OACC)
Britta Wenzel	Save Barnegat Bay
Gerri Wiley	Save the Southern Tier
Sara Hess	Shaleshock
Alice Slater	Shut Down Indian Point Now
Roger Downs	Sierra Club - Atlantic Chapter
Ann I. Aurelio	Sierra Club of Long Island
Jeff Tittel	Sierra Club of New Jersey
Linda Eckstein	Social Action Committee of UUC Glens Falls
Tabitha Tripp	Southern Illinoisans Against Fracturuing our Environment
John Malizia	Staten Island Tuna Club
Pramilla Malick	Stop the Minisink Compressor Station
Mark Pezzati	Stop the Pipeline (STP)
Michael Chojnicki	Sullivan Alliance for Sustainable Development (SASD)
Kathy Russell	SUNY Cortland CGIS Environmentqal Justice Committee
Richie Lee	Surfers' Environmental Alliance
Larry Moriarty	Surfrider Foundation, Central Long Island Chapter
Allison Candelmo	Surfrider Foundation, Jersey Shore Chapter
Nick Lynn	Surfrider Foundation, NYC Chapter
Krissy Halkes	Surfrider Foundation, South Jersey Chapter
Pam Solo	The Civil Society Institute
Bob DeLuca	The Group for the East End
Margaret Wood	The Lakeland Unitarian Universalist
Rachel Davis	The Mothers Project for Sustainable Energy, NJ
Sandra L. Frankel	Town of Brighton
Ling Tsou	United for Action
Suzanne Golas, csjp	WATERSPIRIT
Asha Canalos	We the People Matter
Nada Khader	WESPAC Foundation, Inc.
Eric Justian	West Michigan Jobs Group
Susan Van Dolson	Westchester for Change
Verle Reinicke	Western Organization of  Resource Councils
Jim Gurley	Winona Area Citizens Concerned about Silica Mining (CASM)