Liberty Natural Gas (LNG) has withdrawn an application for a license to construct and operate a deepwater port 30 miles off the coast of Monmouth Beach.
In an April 10 letter to the U.S. Department of Transportation Maritime Administration (MARAD) and U.S. Coast Guard, LNG said that additional survey work, data and analyses are necessary for the project to go forward.
The company confirmed last week that it would start from scratch and file a new application once new surveys and analyses are completed.
Noting that changes and revisions are necessary to the original application, LNG told the agency “that additional work is necessary, and that a complete overhaul of the application materials will be needed given the fundamental changes to the project.
“Going forward, Liberty herby withdraws its current application,” stated the April 10 letter from Daron T. Threet of Holland & Knight, counsel for LNG.
“Liberty will submit a new filing once the new surveys and analyses are complete.”
No timeline was given.
The project’s location would have been 30 miles off the coast of Monmouth Beach. It would have included 2.4 miles of pipeline in New York State waters and no new pipelines in New Jersey waters, taking the revised project out of Gov. Chris Christie’s jurisdiction.
The governor had vetoed the original application in February 2011. His action was applauded by environmental groups including Clean Ocean Action, which dubbed the project “Insanity Island.”
The company had previously redesigned the project in late November, scaling down the size and changing the location from 16 miles off the coast of Asbury Park.
The site of the original application was approximately 16 miles off the shore of Asbury Park and 25 miles south of Rockaway, N.Y., and would include 11 miles of sub-sea pipeline in New Jersey waters.
As outlined in federal filings from 2010, the original deepwater port would have entailed construction of a 9.2-mile onshore pipeline from Linden to Perth Amboy and 44 miles of submerged pipeline designed to transport up to 2.4 billion cubic feet per day of natural gas from the deepwater port to shore.
Prior to withdrawal of the application, 31 organizations called on the federal government to deny the LNG project in a letter addressed to MARAD Administrator David Matsuda on April 3.
Sean Dixon, coastal policy attorney for Clean Ocean Action, said that LNG is already dead in the water.
“One of the things that a lot of people don’t know is that LNG imports are essentially dead. They’re expected to drop down to a miniscule amount of what they once were just starting next year, so the government’s energy forecast doesn’t envision any utility imports whatsoever. We’re already operating at only about 8, 9 percent of our country’s capacity to import on a daily basis, so there’s just no need for another import facility,” said Dixon on
April 13.
“The export issue is the next issue that is popping up. This facility is close to shale deposits and close to a lot of this new cheap gas, and we’re afraid that this is going to become the spigot through which our domestic energy resources get sent to Europe.”
Aside from economical instability,
Dixon said there were innumerable dangers that would impact marine life and the ocean habitat.
“They’re running pipelines through old dump sites, which could stir up toxins on the sea floor. They’re proposing to have a massive construction fleet from other states and other regions that have the expertise in laying these pipelines, so they’re going to be taking over our marinas and coastal communities with these out-ofstate boat fleets,” he said.
“There’s the export issue from a natural gas perspective that’s going to lead to more pressure to do more fracking and to extract the Marcellus shale gas as quickly as possible, which has a myriad of impacts. Not to mention the exclusion zone that would have to be created around these massive tankers that come in and the destructive capability of these massive tankers. There’s an unending list of negatives that come from these projects.”
According to Dixon, the revised project was also expected to share ocean space with an already proposed Long Island- New York City Offshore Wind Project.
“It’s really a picture of do we want to continue this fossil-fuel importation business or do we want to transition to a clean renewable energy future with new technological innovation?”