Sen. Jennifer Beck (R-Monmouth), left, and Clean Ocean Action Executive Director Cindy Zipf discuss why the Liberty Natural Gas proposal for the Port Ambrose Deepwater Port would bring harm to costal communities and marine life along the New Jersey and New York coasts. KAYLA J. MARSH/STAFF Environmental activists have one last chance to stop a proposed liquefied natural gas facility by calling on Gov. Chris Christie to veto the Port Ambrose Deepwater Port, which they say would put coastal communities at risk.
“This has been a seven-year battle for us,” Cindy Zipf, executive director of Clean Ocean Action, said at a rally held by anti- LNG coalition members before the Nov. 4 public hearing at the Eatontown Sheraton Hotel.
The hearing took place several weeks after the release of the Final Environmental Impact Study by the Maritime Administration (MARAD) and the U.S. Coast Guard.
“Hopefully this will be the final chapter of the story,” Zipf said.
Port Ambrose — proposed by the Jersey City-based LNG, a portfolio company of a fund advised by Toronto-based investment management firm West Face Capital — would be built about 29 miles off the coast of Long Branch and 15 miles off Sandy Hook.
Plans for the liquefied natural gas port were put on hold by federal agencies in March due in part to the high volume of public and governmental interest surrounding the proposal.
During the rally and public hearing public officials, residents and stakeholders testified in support of and in opposition to the project, which many said could have impacts on coastal communities.
“We know the facts about this project and the substance of this project, and there is no benefit for the state of New Jersey,” state Sen. Jennifer Beck (R-Monmouth) said.
“There are no jobs, there’s no economic incentive, there’s no new resource for us, so why in God’s name would we ever support this project? We won’t, not now, not ever.”
Discussing existing LNG facilities that have either suspended their license or are exporting very little, Beck questioned why the Port Ambrose project would be different.
“They are not finding a need to import natural gas … because there is no need for these facilities,” she said. “This is about exporting fuel outside of our country … we want to keep our energy resources here. We need them and we want them.
“This is not a necessary infrastructure for us, it is dangerous and has real security concerns attached to it, and I am hopeful Gov. Christie will once again veto this.”
The facility would import an estimated 400 million cubic feet of liquefied natural gas per day. Port Ambrose would be connected via a proposed 22-mile pipeline, which would feed into Transco’s existing Lower New York Bay Lateral pipeline.
LNG estimates that the facility would create “several dozen” permanent operational and contracted jobs, and many proponents agreed.
“With this project we have been asked and will supply the American labor to man these vessels,” said Capt. Steve Werse, representing the international organization of Masters Mates & Pilots, as well as Marine Educators Beneficial Association. “We hope to employ on the deep-sea vessels 40-50 mariners from my union with the local jobs.
“This is what we do for a living, whether it is liquid cargo, dry cargo. This is local to me too, I wouldn’t support a project I thought would affect my backyard and this project will supply good-paying jobs.”
Many opponents of the project question the benefit the Port Ambrose LNG site would have for the New York and New Jersey metropolitan area and said time and energy should be focused on finding alternative and renewable energy resources.
“From a religious and faith-based perspective, we see Port Ambrose as an unnecessary, but real attack on life,” said Sr. Suzanne Golas, director of Waterspirit, based at Stella Maris in Elberon.
“It’s the life of people swimming in an ocean that is contaminated; it’s marine life that is destroyed as victims of the process and pollution of Port Ambrose; it’s the life of a marine environment that in this region is so crucial to the health and vitality to where we live.
“An added problem that is big is that it is a huge distraction from climate change. We’ve been using so much effort and time on LNG, what we should be doing is spending our time and our energy on developing renewable resources.”
League of Women Voters of New Jersey President Nancy Hedinger agreed.
“The league strongly opposes this dangerous and unnecessary Port Ambrose project,” she said. “We mustn’t overlook the security risks posed by Port Ambrose. This project is in a major shipping area on our Eastern seaboard and is a poorly conceived idea.
“The league demands clean renewable energy … and this facility is all risk with no rewards [and] threatens our ocean, security, economy and our climate.”
Port Ambrose requires approval by MARAD before construction can begin, and the entire project is subject to veto by New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo and New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie.
Christie vetoed an earlier iteration of LNG’s proposal in 2011.
After those steps, MARAD will issue a Record of Decision that approves, denies or conditionally approves the proposal
If the project receives approval, the Coast Guard and MARAD estimate that construction would take about 20 months, coming to a close in the final months of 2017. The estimated life of the facility would be 30 years.
“The Coast Guard calls it an environmental impact statement, but it doesn’t deal with the environment, it doesn’t talk about impact,” Jeff Tittel, director of the New Jersey Sierra Club said. “It’s unnecessary, it’s unneeded and it is dangerous.
“The way I see this, given that this is the most densely populated metropolitan area, we have so many coastal communities that to have these ships that are the size of the Statue of Liberty off our coast with this highly volatile gas … if one of those ships would end up being blown into port it would be a crisis like we’ve never seen before.
“These are giant ships filled with hot gases that are cooled down to very cold temperatures that are very explosive and one spark, one mistake, one accident … is not just about this facility, it is about the future of our coast.”
Despite the opposition, several spoke in support of the project citing its benefits to the community and economy.
“New Jersey Society for Environmental Economic Development (NJ SEED) believes this project has real benefits for the region,” NJ SEED member Gregory Mayers said. “The U.S. Coast Guard Environmental Impact Statement demonstrates that the project is needed and the location is safe.”
“The EIS concluded that the project would not be expected to degrade commercial, recreational, ecological or scientific importance to the area.”
The New York and New Jersey governors have until Dec. 21 to approve or veto the project.