NJ Legislators Lead Fight in Trenton to Block Port Ambrose

In early October Clean Ocean Action along with elected officials, environmental leaders, and concerned citizens launched the final battle against Port Ambrose. Senator Beck and Assemblywoman Casagrande, both of whom are leading the legislative charge in Trenton against Port Ambrose, spoke strongly against Port Ambrose and the dangers it poses to our coast. Senator Beck and Assemblywoman Casagrande are sponsors of resolution SR21/AR202 (respectively) opposing Port Ambrose and urging Governor Christie to veto the project.  Their resolutions raise the many concerns about the proposed facility, including the environmental and safety impacts. The resolutions have bi-partisan support and are continuing to gain traction in the Statehouse. Currently, there are 8 Senators co-sponsoring the resolution, including Senators Connors, Bateman, Singer, Greenstein, Barnes, Weinberg, Kean, and Whelan.

Also at the press event, COA released the video of Governor Chris Christie vowing to veto any LNG project off the Jersey Shore. The video is of the Governor on Earth Day, April 22^nd 2010, stating “as long as I am Governor I will oppose any application for any type of liquefied natural gas project.”  You can view this video on the main page of our website: www.CleanOceanAction.org. 

Dangerous Offshore Project is Back - Battle Begins!

The time is now !!! This is our final chance to Stop Port Ambrose - a dangerous, harmful, and unnecessary offshore industrial project!

After months of delay, the Port Ambrose LNG import facility is back and the battle is on! This project is dangerous for our marine ecosystem, economy, and security.

You can help save our ocean, quality of life, and peace of mind by contacting Governor Christie today and attending a public hearing on November 4^th and 5^th  in NJ.

11.   Urge Governor Christie to use his pen to Veto Port Ambrose!  

"As long as I am governor I will oppose any application for any type of liquefied natural gas project," Governor Christie  Earth Day 2010.

Governor Christie has said multiple times that his position has not changed.  Beginning on November 4th Governor Christie can, with a swipe of the pen, stop the project.  Use the easy "how to” below to contact Governor Christie.

2 2. Please attend these final public hearings!  

NEW YORK

Monday, November 2nd & Tuesday, November 3^rd - Long Beach Hotel Long Beach

Open house: 4:30 - 5:30 PM Hearing 6 PM- 10 PM

Click here to RSVP.

NEW JERSEY

Wednesday, November 4th & Thursday, November 5^th - Sheraton in Eatontown

Open house: 4:30 - 5:30 PM Hearing: 6PM to 10PM

Click here to RSVP.

Back in January we had over 1,000 people attend hearings against Port Ambrose and we need even more for the final battle! They have doubled the days -- let's double the number of citizens!

Ways to contact Governor Christie:

Call the Governor: 609-292-6000

Email the Governor.

Sample Phone Message:

Hi, my name is ___________. I am a voter/student/resident from __________ and I am calling to urge Governor Christie to veto the Port Ambrose liquefied natural gas project.

In 2010 Governor Christie promised as long as he is Governor he would veto any LNG application off our coast. I urge Governor Christie to keep his word and veto Port Ambrose.

This project is bad for New Jersey, harmful to the marine environment and threatens our safety.  Governor Christie must put an end to this project once and for all by vetoing Port Ambrose. Thank you.

Sample Email Message:

Dear Governor Christie,

Back in 2010 you strongly stated that you would oppose any application for any type of liquefied natural gas project off our coast. I urge you to keep your promise and veto the proposed Port Ambrose LNG facility.

The national and regional safety issues, environmental and economic concerns that prompted your first veto are the same concerns for Port Ambrose. This project is bad for New Jersey, bad for the marine environment and bad for the future of our planet. Please put an end to this project once and for all.

Veto Port Ambrose! Thank you.
Sincerely,

Your Name

Sign up to get more involved in the final battle including phone banking, outreach and more!

For more information please call 732-872-0111 or email outreach@cleanoceanaction.org

On Earth Day 5 Years Ago Governor Christie Pledged to Oppose Any LNG Application off the Coast

On April 22, 2010 Governor Christie made an Earth Day pledge:

‘For as long as I am governor, this administration will oppose any application for liquefied natural gas.’ The Governor also expressed his opposition to ‘any kind of offshore drilling.’

 Governor Christie’s 2010 Earth Day pledge was an important pledge for protecting our Ocean and coast from industrialization. The Governor kept his 2010 Earth Day promise by vetoing the then proposed Liberty Natural Gas LNG facility in 2011, stopping the project. We applaud Governor Christie for his firm stance on opposing LNG and any kind of offshore drilling. Since the project is back again, now known as Port Ambrose, we still need the Governor to stand firm against LNG.

On Earth Day we recall and salute the strong vow Governor Christie made to defend our coast from LNG and oil and gas drilling.  As we fight back against Port Ambrose we know we have Governor Christie’s vow to veto any application to ensure the project is dead in the water.

Here is more on Governor Christie's 2010 Earth Day Pledge:

http://ind.gmnews.com/news/2010-04-29/Front_Page/Govs_Earth_Day_pledge_No_LNG_offshore_drilling.html

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.” 

"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.

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)