By John Burton
EATONTOWN – It was down to the wire for the public to weigh in on a proposed liquid natural gas terminal for off the coast of Long Branch – and the public did.
For two nights this week, people from the around the state filed into the Sheraton Inn, 6 Industrial Way, to offer their take on a plan for Port Ambrose, a long considered liquid natural gas (LNG) facility, operating in international waters that would store the gas delivered by very large industrial tankers.
The U.S. Coast Guard and U.S. Maritime Administration were conducting the sessions, as required for the federal licensing review process. The two sessions earlier in the week in Long Island, New York, and these two for New Jersey would be the final public input sessions the federal agencies would hold. The public can continue to submit comments until Nov. 30.
By Thursday night’s session, the number of the public had dwindled from Tuesday’s, with about 40-plus people in attendance and more than 30 offering their opinions. On Tuesday night, the first session, more than 70 attended with about 57 offering their views.
Those opposed accounted for the majority of the comments. But while the numbers were decidedly in the other camp, there were those expressed strong support for the plan.
“The benefits of this project are numerous,” said Daniel Ortega, representing the labor group Engineers Labor-Employer Cooperative. Ortega said the plan to construct and operate the facility would have numerous temporary construction jobs, as well as creating permanent positions for the facility. “This job will help protect this whole area,” Ortega said.
Cindy Zipf, executive director of Clean Ocean Action, an environmental advocacy group that has been battling the plan for seven years, again voiced the group’s and many others’ objections to the plan.
For the development entity, Liberty Natural Gas, to continue to assert the benefits and deny the risks, “It’s like the tobacco industry denying tobacco is harmful. It’s like Exxon/Mobile denying climate change,” Zipf alleged. “They both lie.”
Diane Beeny, Westfield, countered Ortega’s assessment, believing the Port Ambrose facility “would be a major economic impact if that should happen.” But not in the way supporters contend, Beeny said, believing this has the potential to negatively affect recreational fishing and tourism, two important economic drivers, by industrializing the Atlantic Ocean.
Kari Martin, Oceanport, offered how she and her husband and children “enjoy the ocean” regularly and “This project is destructive.”
“Building is silly and unnecessary,” Martin said, contradicting Liberty Natural Gas that this project would allow for a stockpile of gas helping stabilizing prices.
The Rev. David X. Stump, a Jersey City Roman Catholic priest, told the panel of federal officials that this project would continue the nation’s dependence on fossil fuels, continuing to compound the problem of climate change. “We should not be building infrastructure to increase the use of carbon-based fuels,” Stump said, believing a greater effort should be directed toward renewable energy sources.
Zipf maintained that over the course of the several years federal agencies have considered this proposal they have accepted roughly 80,000 public comments from the New York/New Jersey area on it and “99.77 percent have been opposed.”
Liberty Natural Gas, Jersey City, a private, for-profit entity, is proposing to construct and operate Port Ambrose LNG terminal, as well as building its accompanying pipeline. The terminal would be approximately 18 miles offshore of Jones Beach, Long Island, New York, and 28 miles off of Long Branch.
The proponents say having a natural gas import facility in the region would benefit customers, providing additional supplies, 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 environmental groups and a number of elected officials continue to stress the facility poses safety concerns in the area of other maritime traffic, fearing it could be a terrorist target. In addition, opponents argue the facility is not needed and this is simply a ploy to establish a future export site and would endanger the area’s environment and economy.
New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie had vetoed similar proposals in 2011 and 2012 and said at that time he would continue to exercise his ability to stop such projects. The Governor’s Office, however, has not issued any public comment at this juncture of the current process.
According to the U.S. Maritime Administration, either Christie or his New York counterpart, Gov. Andrew Cuomo has the ability to unilaterally veto the project or request modifications in the current plan under consideration.
Cuomo’s office hasn’t spoken publicly on Port Ambrose.
According to Curtis Borland, a lawyer with the U.S. Coast Guard, the governors have until Dec. 21 to make their feelings known. The Coast Guard and the maritime administration will take the public comments as well as the recently released environmental impact statement into consideration to make its final determination for its issuance of the license. Their deadline is Feb. 3, 2015, according to Borland.
