Plans for a liquefied natural gas port off the coast of Sandy Hook and Long Branch have been put on hold by federal agencies due in part to the high volume of public comments on the project.
Representatives of the U.S. Coast Guard and Maritime Administration (MARAD) said they have indefinitely suspended an application for the Port Ambrose deepwater natural gas facility that would be located 15 miles off Sandy Hook and 29 miles from Long Branch.
Among the reasons cited is the need to analyze 827 docket postings, totaling over 10,000 public comments, federal officials explained in a March 17 letter to Liberty Natural Gas (LNG) Chief Operating Officer Jason Goldstein.
“Due to the substantial public and governmental interest in this project, we have an affirmative obligation to ensure all reasonable comments are properly considered and responded to,” he said.
The controversial facility faced significant opposition during public hearings as well as an extended public comment period that came to a close on March 16.
The Coast Guard and MARAD also cited a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers requirement that the pipeline connecting Port Ambrose to an existing pipeline be buried 15 feet below the ocean floor.
In addition, an analysis of the proposal’s conformity with the Clean Air Act is still underway, and MARAD has requested financial information from LNG, a Jersey City-based portfolio company of a fund advised by investment management firm West Face Capital, Toronto.
The suspension took effect on March 17 and will remain in place until sufficient data is compiled. At that point, the final environmental impact statement (EIS) will be released.
Opponents of the application said they are heartened by the decision to suspend the licensing process. “I don’t think it’s standard procedure for the clock to be stopped because of overwhelming citizen opposition,” said Cindy Zipf, executive director of Clean Ocean Action.
“It’s unprecedented and sends a strong message to these federal agencies that this application is not welcome.”
Clean Ocean Action is a founding member of the Anti-LNG Coalition, a network of 129 environmental advocacy organizations that formed in opposition to the Port Ambrose project.
The groups are urging Gov. Chris Christie to repeat his 2010 veto of a LNG proposal to construct a liquefied natural gas facility off the coast of Asbury Park.
Roger Whelan, CEO of LNG, said in a statement that the suspension is an expected part of the licensing process.
“We support the Coast Guard’s efforts to conduct an extensive and thorough federal review, and are confident the results will show the Port Ambrose project will have minimal impacts on the environment, while bringing significant benefits to the region,” he said.
The application was suspended previously in 2013 for 90 days because the Coast Guard identified more than 250 “data gaps” in LNG’s application to construct Port Ambrose.
When the current suspension is lifted and the final EIS is released, additional public hearings will be held.
“Even if 21 days were sufficient to process the comments, we must ensure the public has sufficient time to review the [final EIS] prior scheduling of the final hearings,” the letter to LNG reads.
Following the final public hearings, both New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D) and New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (R) would have the option to veto the project.
According to the draft EIS, if approved, 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. Large tankers would deliver natural gas to the port about 45 times a year.
LNG estimates the facility would create “several dozen” permanent operational and contracted jobs. However, critics charge there would only be a handful of permanent jobs created and Port Ambrose would ultimately be used to export liquefied natural gas to Europe, where prices are significantly higher.
MARAD and Coast Guard officials have repeatedly denied this claim, citing “considerable technical, operational and environmental differences between import and export operations” and a requirement to submit a new license application and undergo further environmental reviews prior to beginning export operations.