This post was contributed by a community member. The views expressed here are the author's own.

Health & Fitness

PUBLIC TO MARAD: KILL PORT AMBROSE

Ever since Liberty Natural Gas first proposed constructing a liquefied natural gas (LNG) port in New York and New Jersey waters, the project has engendered a storm of opposition and received almost no public support. Last week when the public comment period drew to a close, the extent of this opposition was evident in the thousands of comments submitted to the Maritime Administration. Catie Tobin of Clean Ocean Action reports that only 12 out of more than 18,800 comments expressed support for the project.

As expected, much of the opposition stems from concerns that the port would create air and water pollution and harm marine life, including endangered species. Others expressed concern that the facility would be an attractive terrorist target, and that it could disrupt shipping to and from the Port of New York--hazards identified by New Jersey Governor Chris Christie when he vetoedan earlier version of the project in 2011. The federal Bureau of Ocean Energy Management noted that the port could interfere with the construction of an offshore wind farm proposed for the same location.

But not all of the opposition to Port Ambrose concerned issues that would directly affect coastal areas. Catskill Citizens for Safe Energy, an all volunteer organization that has been working to prohibit high volume fracking, submitted 5,400 comments on behalf of its members who are concerned that the proposed LNG port will be used to export fracked gas overseas. 

Find out what's happening in Five Townswith free, real-time updates from Patch.

Claims by the project’s sponsor that Port Ambrose would be used to import LNG from abroad simply don’t make economic sense. Foreign gas companies are unlikely to ship LNG to the United States facility because natural gas prices are three-to-five times higher in Europe and Asia than they are in the United States. If Port Ambrose ends up being used to export fracked gas overseas, it would have a devastating impact on drinking water supplies and local economies in vast areas of New York, Pennsylvania and Ohio.

“It clear that Port Ambrose is not in the public’s interest,” said Cindy Zipf, Executive Director of Clean Ocean Action. “Our organization has described the many adverse safety, environmental, economic, and cumulative impacts in 127 pages of detailed comments we are submitting to the Maritime Administration.” Zipf points out that the governors of both New York and New Jersey have the authority to unilaterally prevent Port Ambrose from being built. “It would be a great end-of-the-summer gift to all of us if our governors would keep our ocean safe for tourists, fishermen, commerce and the future by officially vetoing the project.”

Find out what's happening in Five Townswith free, real-time updates from Patch.

We’ve removed the ability to reply as we work to make improvements. Learn more here

The views expressed in this post are the author's own. Want to post on Patch?