Vast Majority Testifying Opposed To LNG Proposal

EATONTOWN – The majority of those in attendance at the final two hearings about a controversial deepwater liquid gas (LNG) terminal that would be 24.9 miles off Long Branch, were opposed to the project citing environmental and security concerns and urged Gov. Chris Christie to veto it.
Opponents, and a few proponents, who argued it would result in jobs and cheaper natural gas during peak months, gathered at the Sheraton Inn, Nov. 3 and 4 to speak at the hearings held by the U.S. Coast Guard and U.S. Maritime Administration on Port Ambrose.
Christie earlier refused permission for a similar proposal by the same development entity, Liberty Natural Gas, in 2011 and 2012, also citing environmental and security reasons. The public can continue to submit comments until Nov. 30 and then the governors have until Dec. 21 to make their feelings known, according to U.S. Coast Guard lawyer Curtis Borland.
Christie and Gov. Andrew Cuomo, New York, have the power to approve or cancel the proposed deepwater LNG terminal, which would also be 27.1 nautical miles from the entrance of New York Harbor. Cuomo’s office has not spoken publicly about the proposal.
Among the 50-plus speakers on Wednesday, most who included public officials, including State Senator Jennifer Beck, (R-11) and Rep. Frank Pallone, Jr. (D-NJ), environmental groups, religious groups and the public, were against the project. The few who favored it were from labor and business organizations that said having the gas import facility would supply additional supplies in peak demand in cold weather and summer months thus avoiding price swings for customers. They said the port would use state-of-the-art equipment and also best practices and ensure environmental and public safety. Cindy Zipf, the executive director of Clean Ocean Action, a Long Branch-based environmental group, in a statement about the proposed facility said, “Port Ambrose has been haunting our coast for seven long years and it is now time to put an end to this harmful, dangerous and unnecessary project. Hundreds of people have attended public hearings, tens of thousands have sent in public comments, and over 99% are in opposition. We are not buying what Liberty Natural Gas and their secret corporate backers in the Cayman Islands are selling. The consensus is clear, the project must end now.”
On Thursday Zipf returned and added, “It’s like the tobacco industry denying tobacco is harmful. It’s like Exxon/Mobile denying climate change,” she said. “They both lie.”
Over the course of several years, federal agencies have accepted roughly 80,000 public comments from the New York-New Jersey area and more than 90 percent have been opposed.
The terminal would be used by LNG vessels to deliver liquid natural gas that would be vaporized on site and delivered to a buried subsea pipe 18.8 nautical mainline that would connect to an existing lateral, according to the Federal Register.

At the Wednesday session of the hearings, Carl Cooper, Holmdel, said “inadequate attention had been given to security considerations at the proposed Port Ambrose beginning with the present lack of identification and security vetting of all Liberty Natural Gas principals.” On its website Liberty Natural Gas identifies itself as a developer for Port Ambrose and “as a portfolio company of a fund advised by West Face Capital, a Toronto, Canada based investment fund.” Cooper also said that Port Ambrose “would be a magnet for terrorist attacks, and security considerations for handling, mitigating and recovering from such attacks (or accidents) are inadequately treated in the FEIS (Final Environmental Impact Statement).”
Many speakers who were against the proposal said they believed that it would be converted to a facility that could export natural gas since the prices for gas were so much lower in the U.S. since there was a large supply here because of fracking and it make no sense to ship in higher priced gas. A Reuters article from April, 2015 said that the CEO of Hoegh LNG, a company which Liberty Natural Gas said on its website is its partner in developing Port Ambrose and Port Meridian, (a deepwater port project in northwest England),” said “The plan is to buy the LNG in the United States which will be taken to “Port Meridian” by LNG vessels.” The LNG will be transferred “to a British pipeline and sold to consumers,” the CEO said. The article did not say from where in the U.S. the LNG would be shipped.
John Toth, who represented the New Jersey Outdoor Alliance and the Jersey Shore Anglers Association, cited the 30-foot waves caused by Superstorm Sandy and questioned if the LNG port “could be adequately secured from the effect of this type of storm? If not, it will be tossed into the ocean with devastating economic effects on our entire region, including loss of life.” Toth said that fishing would be excluding “two miles from each docking buoy” of the port “eliminating the ability of fishing vessels to anchor in the affected area. Commercial and recreational fisherman will be excluded from these important fishing grounds.” He said that “gas itself presents challenges to issues of safety.’’
“What if the gas lines from the LNG port to their shore locations rupture from some mechanical or pressure problem and spill into the ocean?” he asked. “The BP problem in the Gulf showed that repairs to mechanical systems in the sea can be problematic,” he said.
Kari Martin, Oceanport, offered how she and her husband and children “enjoy the ocean” regularly and said “This project is destructive” noting the industrialization of the ocean.
Among those who supported the plan was Daniel Ortega, who represented the labor group Engineers Labor Cooperative. He said the proposal to build and operate the facility would create many temporary construction jobs and create permanent positions. “This job will help protect the whole area,” he said. One speaker at the hearing held a different opinion. Araiya Casriel, 9, of Highlands, said “I am speaking on behalf of those who could not attend this meeting, the ocean creatures themselves. Imagine if a stranger come to your house while you were still in it and started to drop bombs on it. That is what it will feel like to them,” she said. “During construction, millions and millions of plankton, larvae, and fish eggs will be extracted, destroying the very base of the food chain. The sea floor will be demolished. Shellfish beds decades old, gone in days. The migration patterns of marine mammals will be disrupted. Some of the species that are endangered could die out, like the North Atlantic Right Whale.” She also said the Port Ambrose pipeline would cross a fault line “presenting a risk of an explosion…” Erika Casriel, Araiya’s mother said her daughter had written the presentation herself. The governors have until Dec. 21 to express their feeling on the proposal. according to Curtis Borland, a lawyer with the U.S. Coast Guard.