Offshore wind farm near Block Island, R.I.

Essay by Christine Todd Whitman and Leon Panetta, POLITICO, January 28, 2022

When world leaders gathered last fall at COP26, it was billed as the “world’s last best chance” to save the planet from the climate crisis. The conference ended with real uncertainty as to whether comprehensive action will be taken, here and abroad, to avoid catastrophe. Fortunately, one of the best opportunities for progress is all around us: the waves, wind and water along the U.S.’s nearly 100,000 miles of coastline.

As the engine of our planet’s weather and climate systems, the ocean’s potential as a climate solution is as vast as the ocean itself. In fact, ocean-based climate action can provide 20 percent of the emissions reductions needed to achieve global targets to limit climate change and its effects. According to the High Level Panel for a Sustainable Ocean Economy, “reductions of this magnitude are equivalent to the annual emissions from all coal-fired power plants worldwide or taking 2.5 billion cars off the road.”

Here are some key opportunities:

>>> Boost Offshore Renewables: Offshore renewables, like wind and wave energy, can help power the nation while cutting emissions. These sources of clean energy can serve as part of a just and equitable transition by providing economic benefits and abundant electricity to the communities that have suffered the most under climate change.

>>> Reduce Emissions from Shipping: We also need to look to the ocean to significantly reduce contributors of greenhouse gas emissions, such as maritime shipping, which generates more emissions than airlines. The administration, working with ports and the shipping industry, can implement strategies that will move us to zero-carbon shipping by 2050 to drastically reduce the climate contributions of cargo ships and freighters at sea. Infrastructure improvements at ports, fleet upgrades and alternative fuels can all be part of the effort.

>>> Rebuild Coastal Ecosystems: By protecting the ocean, we also enable the ocean to protect us through natural climate mitigation. Carbon-rich coastal environments like salt marshes, seagrass meadows and mangrove forests all naturally absorb carbon up to four times more effectively than trees on land. And when we conserve these habitats for their climate benefits, we are also protecting natural coastal infrastructure that will safeguard communities against storms and rising sea levels. This is particularly crucial for supporting marginalized communities, including low-income neighborhoods that were built in flood zones and are on the front lines of the climate crisis.

Washington has never before had a comprehensive ocean climate plan that weaves these efforts together. In order to realize the ocean’s potential to curb the climate crisis, the White House must marshal agencies across the government, so they are working in concert toward the same goals. President Joe Biden has taken a series of promising steps throughout his first year in office, but the U.S. still needs a coordinated federal strategy to turn this momentum into lasting results. The White House, to its credit, recently held itsfirst meeting of the congressionally authorized Ocean Policy Committee and made a commitment to develop a new cross-cutting strategy.

As the committee puts pen to paper, it should not waste the opportunity to map out the best strategies that embrace the ocean as a climate solution. From our time as Cabinet officials in previous administrations, we’ve been in the trenches on policymaking and know it is critical to have an overarching strategy rather than letting each agency chart its own path. A coordinated policy approach is more effective because it allows the administration to identify big picture goals and eliminate duplicative efforts.

Today, we work with a bipartisan effort to catalyze action toward meaningful ocean policy reform called the Joint Ocean Commission Initiative. Alongside over 100 ocean policy leaders — ranging from outdoor recreation brands to professional surfing organizations — we stand ready to join with the administration to advance a comprehensive ocean climate action plan.

It’s true that political disagreement has delayed climate action for far too long. While we come from different parties, we’ve found common cause on ocean policy and see it as a particularly fruitful area of bipartisan cooperation.

After all, our ocean and coastlines are vital to our economic and national security. They are also the foundation for what we call the “Blue Economy,” which acknowledges the wealth of marine resources — from sustainable fishing to aquaculture to shipping to tourism — that must be balanced sustainably to support jobs and economic growth. With the Blue Economy expected to grow at twice the rate of the overall economy, it is hard to imagine a better return on investment than securing the health and future of our ocean.

Now more than ever, we need to be taking every opportunity to avoid climate catastrophe — and the clock is ticking. From Category 5 hurricanes on the East Coast, to wildfires out West, to devastating tornadoes in the Midwest, we’re seeing the effects of climate change every day. Our country is poised like never before to advance bold climate action, and a coordinated ocean climate action plan can help turn that tide.

The ocean makes up over 70 percent of our planet. We believe it can help save the planet itself.

NOTE ~ Christine Todd Whitman is the former governor of New Jersey, former EPA administrator under President George W. Bush, and serves as co-chair of the Joint Ocean Commission Initiative Leadership Council. ALSO, Leon Panetta served as the CIA director and defense secretary under President Barack Obama, as White House chief of staff under President Bill Clinton, and was a former co-chair of the Joint Ocean Commission Initiative Leadership Council.

Transporting LNG via trucks or trains carries unacceptable risks

FROM AN ARTICLE BY JON HURDLE, NEW JERSEY SPOTLIGHT, MARCH 4, 2020

Trial-like proceeding will hear all sides and recommend whether to uphold Delaware River Basin Commission’s approval.

The Delaware River Basin Commission has set up a quasi-judicial hearing on a controversial plan to build New Jersey’s first liquefied natural gas export terminal on the Delaware River, giving opponents a high-profile opportunity to reargue their case almost a year after the project was approved by the interstate water regulator.

The DRBC said the hearing, due to start on April 15 in Mercerville, will include testimony by the project’s developer, Delaware River Partners (DRP) as well as commission staff, and the environmental group Delaware Riverkeeper Network (DRN), which opposes the project and called last July for a rehearing.

“This announcement is a stunning admission that the DRBC failed to provide a full or fair opportunity for public comment before approving the Gibbstown Logistics LNG export facility,” said Delaware Riverkeeper Network leader Maya van Rossum, in a statement.

The “adjudicatory hearing,” a trial-like proceeding that will include direct- and cross-examination of witnesses by all sides, will take place before a hearing officer — an official from the Pennsylvania Department of State — who will later recommend to the commission whether to uphold or reject its approval of the project last June. The commission will be under no obligation to accept the recommendation.

Some seats will be made available for the public to attend the hearing but the public will not be allowed to speak, the DRBC said.

Former DuPont site in Gloucester County, NJ

Delaware Riverkeeper Network previously argued that the commission didn’t allow nearly enough time for the public to comment on the proposal, which would build a 43-feet deep berth on a former DuPont site at Gibbstown on the Delaware River in Gloucester County. The project would make space for two oceangoing tankers to ship LNG that would be carried by rail from the gas-rich reserves of the Marcellus Shale in northeastern Pennsylvania.

Under an earlier plan, the fuel was to be shipped to Gibbstown in hundreds of trucks. But in December, the federal pipeline regulator, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, approved the use of trains to carry LNG from Wyalusing, PA to Gibbstown, the first route in the nation where shipment of LNG by rail would be allowed. It is unclear whether there will be any truck shipments.

Other fuels that would be shipped via the $95 million dock include butane, ethane, propane and liquefied petroleum gas (LPG). There will be no bulk storage and no manufacturing of any of the liquids at the site, DRBC said.

The proposed terminal would be an addition to Dock 1, a deep-water berth on the same site for multipurpose freight shipping such as automobiles and break-bulk cargo (not shipped in containers), that was substantially completed in December 2018.

Issues of public and environmental safety

Delaware Riverkeeper Network and other critics argue that the project would be a risk to public safety because of the highly explosive nature of super-cooled natural gas to be transported in rail tankers about 175 miles through many densely populated areas. They also say it would endanger the health of the Delaware River, and increase demand for fracked gas amid efforts by New Jersey and many other states to reduce their dependence on climate-altering fossil fuels. The environmental group said the hearing announcement shows DRBC now recognizes that it should have given the public more opportunity to comment before approving the project.

Delaware Riverkeeper Network leader van Rossum said it should not have been necessary for her organization to file a legal challenge and obtain expert reports — which will be presented at the hearing — to challenge the DRBC’s approval.

Kate Schmidt, a spokeswoman for DRBC, said the commission gave 14 days’ notice of a June 6, 2019 public hearing on whether to approve the project, more than the 10 days required by commission rules, and written comment was accepted until June 7. The commission approved the project on June 12.

After the upcoming hearing, the hearing officer will submit his findings and recommendations, based on hearing testimony and public written comments, which must be received by April 24, Schmidt said.

‘Highly unusual’ move to reopen case

Doug O’Malley, director of Environment New Jersey, said that reopening the public debate over the project was a “highly unusual” move that reflected an inadequate comment period before the approval was issued.

“Better late than never to have a more open public-comment process, but it’s a reflection that the public didn’t get an adequate opportunity to weigh in previously,” he said. “It was a very rushed process that followed the letter of the law but did not follow the spirit.”

Airing the issues before a hearing officer will provide “a measure of independence” to the process, said O’Malley, whose organization also opposes the plan. Even though the commission is not required to accept the hearing officer’s recommendations, any conclusion that the terminal should not go ahead would send a “very powerful message” to the DRBC, he said.

In June last year, the project needed permits from the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the U.S. Coast Guard, Gloucester County, and Greenwich Township, the DRBC said.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

See also: Delaware Riverkeeper appeals state permit for LNG project in Gibbstown, Cherry Hill Courier Post, October 21, 2019

A coalition of environmental groups is fighting plans to ship LNG (liquefied natural gas) from Repauno Port & Rail Terminal on the Delaware River in Greenwich Township. Formerly owned by DuPont Company, the site is now under development by New Fortress Energy and Delaware River Partners as a rail terminal and deep-water port.

LNG Tanker Ships are Gross Contributors to Global Climate Change

From an Article by Jon Hurdle, New Jersey Spotlight, July 17, 2019

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers divulged new details yesterday about plans for New Jersey’s first export terminal for liquefied natural gas, showing it would be supplied by as many as 15 trucks an hour — around the clock — to fill an ocean-going tanker every two weeks.

The previously unpublished information about the proposed terminal at Gibbstown in Gloucester County, the Army Corps said Tuesday, came from new details it had received about the plan by the developer, Delaware River Partners, since the agency published an earlier notice on the project in April.

The new document said LNG — a super-cooled form of natural gas that can explode if its vapor is mixed with air in an enclosed space — would not be processed or stored on site but would be pumped directly from trucks into ships.

To limit the impact of the heavy truck traffic on residential areas, Gloucester County is proposing a new access road to a port that would be expanded to accommodate the terminal, the document said. The new road would be about 110 feet from the nearest residential area; the terminal’s loading area would be built at least a mile away from those homes.

The developer has also proposed carrying the LNG to the terminal by rail but that idea hasn’t yet been approved by the U.S. Department of Transportation, the Army Corps report said. Until that happens, the Corps said it’s not possible to predict the volume of LNG that would arrive by rail or the number of trains.

Opening markets for fracked Marcellus Shale gas

The Corps, which must approve some aspects of the planned Gibbstown Logistics Center, said there was nothing inaccurate about its first notice, but that it wanted to “expand our discussion of the public interest factors relevant to the Corps of Engineers review” of the project.

But disclosure of the new detail may fuel critics who say that DRP and some government agencies have not been fully transparent about a project that would bring explosive materials to a residential area, and which would stimulate the production of fracked natural gas, boosting climate-changing carbon emissions.

The gas, harvested from Pennsylvania’s Marcellus Shale would be liquefied at a proposed plant in Bradford County, Pa., built by New Fortress Energy, a LNG company.

The terminal would expand the market for gas from the Marcellus geological formation — one of the biggest reserves in the world — after about a decade in which some of it has been “shut-in” because of a shortage of pipelines or other infrastructure for shipping it to customers.

If built, the Gibbstown facility would be the first LNG export terminal in New Jersey, and would join at least nine others around the country built over the last decade in response to the boom in production of natural gas obtained by fracking, also known as hydraulic fracturing.

Critics have accused DRP and some government agencies of covering up the details of their plans, which would result in 360 trucks a day, each carrying 12,000 gallons of LNG, leaving the planned liquefaction plant in northeastern Pennsylvania and arriving in Gibbstown 24 hours a day. The terminal would have the capacity to export 1.67 million barrels of LNG per month.

“New Fortress Energy keeps playing games, and only giving out little bits of information at a time,” said Jeff Tittel, director of the New Jersey Sierra Club. “Every day we look at this, the project gets bigger and more dangerous.”

‘Supplemental public notice’ seems appropriate

Tittel argued that the Corps acted properly in issuing the new notice because it needed to make the public aware of the new information from the applicant.

Steve Rochette, a spokesman for the Corps’ Philadelphia office, said the new notice arose from conversations with the applicant since the first notice was issued.

“As a result of those conversations, this office felt the public would benefit from a supplemental public notice explaining the project in more detail. This in turn will allow the public to better understand the project and address any concerns that may arise,” he wrote in an email.

In evaluating the application for permits, the Corps said it will consider a range of factors including whether the project would help to meet national and local energy needs; whether dredging and dock construction would affect water quality, and whether those activities would erode shorelines.

DRP’s plans to dredge the Delaware River and construct an extra dock got a green light last month from the Delaware River Basin Commission in the face of criticism from environmentalists that it had not allowed the public the opportunity to comment. The DRBC said this week it is considering a request by the environmental group Delaware Riverkeeper Network to take another look at its approval, and hold a public hearing.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

NOTICE TO RESIDENTS, CONSERVATIONISTS & VACATIONERS

Beware to Delaware Bay, Cape Henlopen State Park, as well as the beaches including Lewes, Cape Shores, Rehoboth, etc. Sediment can become a problem. Fish kills can occur. The increased shipping can interfere with existing activities as the Cape May to Lewes Ferry. DGN

Dominion Energy’s Cove Point LNG Terminal in Chesapeake Bay, MD

From an Article of Natural Gas Intelligence, July 19, 2019

Environmental groups have embarked on a complex effort at various state and federal agencies to stop an affiliate of New Fortress Energy LLC from developing a small-scale natural gas export terminal in New Jersey along the Delaware River.

The Delaware Riverkeeper Network (DRN) has worked in recent months to reveal information about the facility scattered across various agencies that it said wasn’t properly shared with the public.

At the DRN’s request, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers on Tuesday reopened a public comment period for the project’s permit under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. DRN is also pushing the Delaware River Basin Commision (DRBC), a quasi-regulatory agency involving four states and the U.S. government that oversees the Delaware River watershed, to reconsider its approval last month of an expansion at the proposed facility. The expansion would enable the transfer of liquefied natural gas (LNG) from trucks to ships for export.

A DRBC spokesman said the commission is currently reviewing that request. Maya van Rossum, who leads DRN, told NGI that the organization is “certainly prepared to go to court” if DRBC doesn’t grant a hearing to reconsider its approval. DRN said the commission violated its governing compact when it approved the project without having more information about the possible impacts.

New Fortress affiliate Delaware River Partners LLC in 2017 requested a waterway suitability assessment from the U.S. Coast Guard, saying in a letter that it wanted to construct a multi-use, deep-water port and logistics center for a variety of uses, including the handling of automobiles, other bulk freight, and LNG and liquefied petroleum gas (LPG). The company told the Coast Guard that the terminal would have an LNG export capacity of 1.5 million metric tonnes/year and an LPG export capacity of 9.6 million bbl/year.

DRN and other environmental groups contend that the company failed to share its plans for LNG at the proposed facility in Gloucester County, which would be called the Gibbstown Logistics Center. DRBC’s initial approval of the project included only plans for LPG export from one dock, van Rossum said.

The Army Corps on Tuesday said it was reopening the comment period so the public could weigh in on additional information included in the notice. The Army Corps said LNG would arrive at the site via trucks carrying 12,000 gallons of product each. The LNG would then be pumped from a second dock to vessels in the port for export. The planned use of railcars to bring additional volumes in has not yet been approved by the U.S. Department of Transportation, the Army Corps said in the public comment notice.

“The other agencies could have, should have known, and at this point they certainly do know,” van Rossum said of the company’s plans for LNG exports. “So, we consider this a classic case of segmentation because now” Delaware River Partners has come back and said “‘now that you’ve approved this, we’re just going to add on this relatively little piece and from this dock we’re going to be doing LNG exports.’”

DRBC spokesman Peter Eschbach said the commission has little control over what the company would handle at the facility. “Generally, DRBC jurisdiction for this project is for the dock construction and the river dredging,” he told NGI. “We don’t have authority over cargo.”

New Jersey Sierra Club Director Jeff Tittel indicated that the company could face more resistance throughout the permitting process as both the state Department of Environmental Protection and FERC must also approve it. DRN has already filed an appeal with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission over a Freedom of Information Act request for documents about the project that it said wasn’t fulfilled.

New Fortress, which went public earlier this year, is developing two small-scale liquefaction projects in Northeast Pennsylvania that would have a combined capacity of 7.3 million gallons/d, according to a prospectus it filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission ahead of its initial public offering.

Site work is underway on the first facility in the Marcellus Shale hotbed of Bradford County, with construction expected to start next year. A dedicated tanker truck fleet would transport the LNG to the Delaware River site so that ships can take it to the company’s terminals for distribution, according to the prospectus. The company could not be reached to comment about the project.

New Fortress is focused on introducing LNG in markets that lack access to the fuel. It already operates a 100,000 gallon/d liquefier in Miami and an offshore terminal in Jamaica, along with a fuel handling facility in Puerto Rico. The company had a total of 14 projects under development at the end of the first quarter, including those in Pennsylvania and others in Ireland and Mexico.

In the Appalachian Basin, small-scale LNG facilities are gaining importance given the natural gas supply glut, especially in rural areas. Northeast LNG exports are also likely to remain flat at about 700 MMcf/d for the foreseeable future as Dominion Energy Inc.’s larger single-train Cove Point export terminal in Maryland is fully subscribed. (See the graph insert above.)

LNG trucks exist but what happens in a highway accident?

From an Article by Jon Hurdle, NJ Spotlight, June 3, 2019

Plans to build a liquefied natural gas export terminal at Gibbstown in Greenwich Township, Gloucester County have not been fully disclosed to the public by regulatory agencies or by the developer of the site on the Delaware River in South Jersey, an environmental group says.

Delaware Riverkeeper Network accused the developer, Delaware River Partners, and several regulators of not doing enough to keep the public informed of the plan to build the terminal that would transfer super-cooled natural gas from Pennsylvania’s Marcellus Shale via trucks to ocean-going tankers.

Although documents from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and Greenwich Township show that the LNG plan has in fact received some disclosure, Delaware Riverkeeper says the project has been mostly kept hidden from the public despite concerns that LNG is potentially explosive, and that the terminal would represent an expansion of fossil-fuel infrastructure amid global efforts to curb carbon emissions.

Calling the matter “a deliberate coverup,” DRN accused the agencies and the company of trying to avoid public criticism by keeping the plans quiet.

“There would be no reason not to disclose this critical body of information other than to evade a full and fair review by agencies and the public,” the group said in a letter to environmental officials in New Jersey, Pennsylvania and Delaware, the Delaware River Basin Commission, and other regulators.

Multi-use marine terminal

DRN said it has since 2016 been monitoring a plan to build a multi-use marine terminal called Gibbstown Logistics Center on a former DuPont site but only learned of a proposal to add the LNG terminal after “conversations” with agency staff.

“At no time throughout Delaware Riverkeeper Network’s participation in the public review of this project was the export of LNG from the facility ever discussed,” DRN told the agencies.

It urged the DRBC to cancel a June 6 hearing scheduled to discuss the addition of a dock including two deep-water berths at the Gibbstown facility, and said the agency had not mentioned LNG exports in any of its public documents relating to the hearing.

DRBC, an interstate regulator of water quality in the river basin, said the LNG plan had not been included in a permit application from Delaware River Partners (DRP) but that the regulator has no plans to cancel the hearing.

“If DRP had included LNG export in its project description in its application to the commission … DRBC would have included that description in both of the draft dockets and related public notices,” said Kate Schmidt, a spokeswoman for the agency.

‘Accepted at face value’

In December 2017, DRBC approved the company’s application for a multi-use marine terminal that would include “bulk liquids and gases handling” and “accepted that at face value,” Schmidt wrote in an email.

The United States began exporting liquefied natural gas in early 2016 in response to a surge in domestic production caused by hydraulic fracking of shale reserves. Most export terminals are on the Gulf Coast but they also include one at Cove Point in Maryland.

LNG exports from abundant U.S. gas reserves such as those in Pennsylvania are being touted by the Trump administration as a way of promoting U.S. notions of freedom around the world.

Last week, the U.S. Under Secretary of Energy, Mark W. Menezes, called LNG “freedom gas” when announcing plans for a new export terminal in Texas. “Increasing export capacity from the Freeport LNG project is critical to spreading freedom gas throughout the world by giving America’s allies a diverse and affordable source of clean energy,” Menezes said in an Energy Department press release.

Accused of trying ‘to hide the ball’

For the planned Gibbstown facility, Delaware River Partners is talking to potential customers who are interested in “transloading a variety of energy related liquids, potentially including liquefied natural gas,” said Liz Thomas, a spokeswoman. She said the company has notified all relevant permitting agencies of its plans.

One of the agencies, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, issued a public notice on April 4 saying the site would be used to handle a “multitude” of products including LNG, which would be brought in by truck or rail and then loaded onto ships. Steve Rochette, a spokesman for the Corps’ Philadelphia office, said the notice was sent to DRN and other environmental groups.

But Maya van Rossum, head of Delaware Riverkeeper, said the Corps’ brief mention of LNG doesn’t excuse it of failing to publicly and thoroughly investigate the proposal. “The Army Corps is among the parties involved who sought to hide the ball through lack of information and clear and obvious obfuscation,” she said.

Van Rossum said the Corps had not disclosed plans for LNG in its response to Freedom of Information Act filings by DRN, and its staff had not told DRN anything about the LNG part of the Gibbstown plan.

LNG would be trucked to Gibbstown

The New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection did not respond to questions on whether it had approved the terminal as part of the Gibbstown project or whether the developer had disclosed a plan to transfer LNG, but cited a letter from the company to Greenwich Township officials, saying that the terminal’s uses would include the transfer of LNG.

“This marine terminal is planned to include uses such as an automobile import and processing facility, a bulk liquids storage and handling facility for the transfer of liquefied natural gas and other materials, as well as perishables and bulk cargo handling and logistics,” the letter said.

If implemented, the Pennsylvania gas would be liquefied at a new plant in Bradford County, Pa., and then trucked to Gibbstown, according to a filing to the Securities and Exchange Commission by New Fortress Energy, developer of the liquefaction plant. The $800 million plant would be able to produce 3-4 million gallons a day of LNG.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

See Also: U.S. FERC approves two new LNG export terminals in Texas and Louisiana — Reuters News Service, April 18, 2019

(Reuters) – The U.S. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) has approved construction of two proposed liquefied natural gas (LNG) export terminals, Tellurian Inc’s Driftwood in Louisiana and Sempra Energy’s Port Arthur in Texas.

Say No to Port Ambrose LNG Project

Fracktivists Fight Liquefied Natural Gas Terminal Near NYC

From an Article by Ben Adler, Grist.com, January 23, 2015

New York state’s fracking fight has moved offshore. And now the key players include not just New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo but also New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie.

New York’s famously dedicated anti-fracking activists, who last year helped push Cuomo to ban the practice entirely, have teamed up with coastal conservation groups to stop a proposed liquefied natural gas (LNG) terminal from being built 19 miles off the coast of Long Island and only 30 miles from New York Harbor, the nautical entry point at the heart of New York City. Environmentalists and residents of nearby communities, who have formed the No LNG Coalition to coordinate opposition to the project, fear gas leaks from the terminal could cause vapor clouds, fires, explosions, and damage to the ocean ecosystem. They also point out that it would be a ripe potential target for terrorists.

Liberty Natural Gas says the facility, called Port Ambrose, would be used for importing LNG drilled in Trinidad and Tobago. Given the plentiful supply of natural gas from the fracking boom in the nearby Marcellus Shale, and the added costs of freezing natural gas to liquefy and ship it, opponents are skeptical. They believe that Liberty’s real plan is to liquefy and export natural gas drilled in North America.

And activists fear that a new export terminal would increase the pressure for more gas drilling. So, even though they mostly hail from upstate, where there are natural gas deposits underground, the fracktivists have joined the fight against Port Ambrose. “Most people do not believe that this is going to remain an import terminal and any potential for export leads to fracking,” says Jessica Roff, downstate regional organizer for New Yorkers Against Fracking.

And even if that fracking isn’t in New York state, that doesn’t mean it has no effect on New Yorkers. Fracking is rampant in neighboring Pennsylvania, and pollution doesn’t recognize state boundaries. “[Pennsylvania] is where we get a lot of our food from,” observes Roff. “It’s right on our border, close to us. Our food is connected, our waterways are connected. If the facility is built, New York is still getting fracked.”

“The whole fight [against Port Ambrose] has been energized by the fracking movement in the last few years,” says John Weber, Mid-Atlantic regional manager for the Surfrider Foundation, an advocacy group that focuses on the health of oceans and coastal ecosystems.

Liberty denies that it intends to use the terminal for export. Its CEO told the Associated Press, “This will never be an export project. … It’s crazy to try to export gas from that location; it would be the most expensive gas on the planet.” The project as currently proposed would also not have the permits or cooling technology for LNG exportation. But local activists also worry that approval of Port Ambrose would set a precedent that could lead to approval of LNG export terminals in the same area.

And fracktivists oppose building any major fossil fuel infrastructure because they are committed to the broader fight against climate change. Why, they wonder, would we invest in exporting or importing natural gas, when we should instead be building clean energy capacity? “

The communities most at risk from this terminal are also among the most vulnerable to climate change. The nearest towns and neighborhoods are Long Beach on Long Island and the Rockaways in New York City. Both were hit hard by Hurricane Sandy’s epic storm surge. Homes were flooded, many were damaged beyond repair, and a downed power line in the Breezy Point neighborhood of the Rockaway peninsula caused a massive fire. “These are places that were deeply affected by Sandy and are still trying to recuperate,” notes Roff, who was active in Occupy Sandy.

Under federal law, the governors of “adjacent states” — in this case New Jersey, which is only 29 miles from the site, as well as New York — can veto the project. Activists in both states are focused heavily on building grassroots pressure on their governors. They’re getting the word out in potentially affected communities through local volunteers who post fliers and bring neighbors to town-hall meetings. Meanwhile, groups — including local social-justice groups like the Long Island Progressive Coalition, as well as anti-fracking and coastal conservation organizations — are asking everyone on their email lists to sign online petitions and email their governor.

Surprisingly, it is the Republican, Christie, who has been more opposed to offshore LNG terminals in the past. In 2011, Christie vetoed a very similar project also proposed by Liberty, which would have been even closer to the Jersey Shore. “I take very seriously our obligation to protect the environmental health of our coastal waters,” Christie said at the time. “Offshore LNG poses unacceptable risks to the State’s residents, natural resources, economy and security.” He talked up the need to instead “promote sustainable energy.”

But Christie may take a different view now. He is running for president, spending much of his time traveling the country, often on the taxpayers’ dime. (With an eye toward Iowa and its legions of pig farmers, he recently vetoed a popular bipartisan measure to ban tortuously small pig crates.) Activists worry that Christie will allow the Port Ambrose project to move forward because he is trying to appeal to the GOP’s rabidly pro-fossil fuel national primary voters and donors. In preparation for this run, he has been moving steadily rightward on the environment and he avoids mentioning even the possibility that rising sea levels exacerbated Hurricane Sandy.

“I think Port Ambrose will be held hostage to [Christie’s] national ambition,” says Jeff Tittel, director of the New Jersey Sierra Club. “Christie in 2010 was a different Christie. Christie now wants to be supported by the Tea Party/Koch brothers wing” of the Republican Party.

Currently, the federal Maritime Administration’s environmental impact statement on Port Ambrose is going through the public-comment phase of the review process. The project’s opponents are sending in comments and turning out to the official public hearings to voice their complaints. There were more than 500 attendees at a hearing on Jan. 7 in Queens. More than 60 people testified against the Port Ambrose proposal, while only 7 testified for it, according to Robbins — and there were still people waiting to speak when the hearing ended at 11 p.m. The Long Beach City Council unanimously sent a letter to Cuomo opposing the project, and the city provided transportation for concerned citizens to get to the hearing.

After the comment period ends and a final EIS is issued this spring, Cuomo and Christie will have a 45-day period in which to issue a veto. National environmental organizations like the Natural Resources Defense Council are joining state and local groups in sounding the alarm against the project. The fracking boom may have given the fossil fuel industry new legs, but it has also emboldened a new generation of activists, and they’re ready to fight.

See also: www.FrackCheckWV.net