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.”
