1/8 Hearing on LNG Proposal Could Make a Difference

390

By John Burton
A JAN. 8 public hearing could make a vital difference in the environmentalists’ battle over a proposed liquefied natural facility off the Jersey Shore.
“We are putting a lot of effort in this in hope of informing the public about this,” said Tim Dillingham, executive director of American Littoral Society, one of the coalition of environmental groups which have been conducting a full-court press looking to derail the plan and have been aggressively campaigning to get the public to attend the hearing.
The U.S. Coast Guard and the U.S. Maritime Administration is planning to hold a public input session at the Eatontown Sheraton Thursday from 6 p.m. to 8 p.m., after press time for The Two River Times, on their draft environmental impact statement (DEIS) as part of the approval process for the Port Ambrose deepwater liquefied natural gas (LNG) facility proposed for roughly 18 miles off the coast of Long Island, New York, and approximately 28 miles off Monmouth Beach.
The prospect of a for-profit industrial facility not that far off the Jersey Shore has environmental organizations seeing red, believing it presents a danger to the public safety, environment and economy.
“We’ve been looking at this issue since 2007 and we know this is not in the public interest,” said Cindy Zipf, executive director of Clean Ocean Action.
Liberty Natural Gas, Jersey City, a private entity, is proposing to establish the import LNG facility and appears to have gotten some encouragement with the release last month of the 1,800-page DEIS, expressing support for the project.
“The DEIS confirms the truth about this offshore natural gas supply project and confirms that our proposal constitutes no significant environmental or security risk to the region,” said Roger Whelan, chief executive officer for Liberty Natural Gas, in a released statement.
The proponents say having a natural gas import facility in the region would benefit customers, providing additional supplies and helping alleviate the price swings experienced during peak cold weather and summer months. The facility, they stressed, would use state-of-the-art equipment and best practices ensuring public and environmental safety.
But for environmentalists, “To put an industrial facility that would potentially pose safety concerns in the area of other maritime traffic really does not seem to be in the public interest,” Dillingham responded.
Another very similar project, called Port Liberty, also offered by Liberty Natural Gas, also ran into opposition. Gov. Chris Christie vetoed that plan in 2011 and again in 2012.
Dillingham and Zipf said Christie and New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo had the option to veto this project. Calls to both governors’ offices this week were not returned by press time.
The strength of the opposition rests with the public, the environmentalists believed. “What I know to be true is that the power of the people can protect the ocean,” Zipf maintained. “And that’s why people need to show up.”
The federal agencies, which were holding a public session in Jamaica, Queens, New York, on Wednesday evening, as well as the New Jersey one Thursday, have extended the deadline for written comments to March 16, Zipf said this week.