Don't be Fossil-Fooled! LNG is not in the Public Interest

'LNG' = Expensive, Dirty, Harmful, Un-American, Foreign Fossil Fuel

by Clean Ocean Action

The race to industrialize the ocean has begun with three proposals to build ports off the coast of New Jersey and the south shore of Long Island, New York, to import another foreign fossil fuel – liquefied natural gas (LNG). Greedy companies, including Exxon and foreign energy conglomerates, are trying to corner the market and hypnotize citizens into believing this region needs LNG to meet energy needs and that it can lower prices. Nothing can be farther from the truth.

• harmful to marine life, will destroy essential fishing grounds, such as the Mud Hole, Shrewsbury Rocks, Raritan Bay
• not needed – domestic sources are vast and can meet needs for over 100 years
• Un-American – LNG is from foreign sources, primarily from Russia and the Middle East. Supporting LNG will shift us from our American energy independence (97% of our natural gas currently used in the US is domestic) to energy dependence.
• unsafe, especially for navigation in this busy NY/NJ port region, and due to storms
• up to twice the cost of domestic natural gas
• up to 40% more polluting than domestic natural gas
• will block access to vast areas of ocean

1. Atlantic Sea Island Group, a group of private investors, seeks to build the world’s first open ocean man-made island 19.5 miles east of Sea Bright called, 'Safe Harbor.'
2. Excalibur (a new conglomerate) seeks to build "Liberty Natural Gas," a four turret buoys to receive LNG 15 miles off Asbury Park.
3. Exxon proposes "BlueOcean Energy," an experimental massive floating storage and re-gasification unit (FSRU) 20 miles off Manasquan Inlet.

Offshore ports will harm marine environments, kill early stages of fish and marine life and threaten the coastal economy.
The three LNG ports will each have different, varying degrees of significant and profound effects. However, all of the facilities will cause:

• hundreds of acres of habitat to be destroyed for infrastructure – including prime fishing grounds;
• water pollution from wastewater, biocides, nitrogen, and possible spills;
• extensive air pollution, including CO2 emissions, sulfur dioxide, and nitrogen oxide (particularly bad for marine waters by adding nitrogen).

Big Seas, Big Trouble for Offshore LNG Ports
The mid-Atlantic can often turn turbulent and mean. Waves during nor‘easters, tropical storms, and hurricanes are giants and can easily destroy offshore infrastructure. We need only look to Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, which destroyed 113 oil platforms and over 400 miles of pipelines.

LNG is far more polluting than domestic natural gas.
LNG can be up to 40% more polluting than natural gas; the increase is caused by the excessive energy needs that LNG requires during its lifecycle. The process is dirty and requires the cooling of natural gas to –259° F, loading it into tanker ships, transporting it thousands of miles (often using ships burning bunker fuel), and then re-heating it to gas. Some argue that the gas used to generate LNG would otherwise be flared off. This is a red-herring issue and flaring is increasing despite growing LNG exports.

LNG at Sea--Unsafe and Not Secure and No Access by locals.
There will be large exclusion zones proposed that will reduce or eliminate public access because LNG tankers and facilities are security risks and vulnerable to attack. In this regard, it may seem wise to place them offshore. However, the U.S. Coast Guard is already spread thin and is unable to adequately police existing facilities. The ports are also in the pathway of the NY/NJ Harbor, raising navigational issues. Security consultants also raise serious concerns regarding the LNG tanker ships being hijacked by unfriendly governments.

The U.S. is independent thanks to domestic natural gas, which can meet future needs for 100 years.
Importantly, these, along with other domestic sources, currently supply 97% of the U.S. need—providing a reliable, secure, cheaper, and independent source of energy. Unlike oil, the nation is awash in domestic natural gas, and is the number two producer in the world. Recent industry sources predict supplies could last 120 years. As the country continues to grow and consumption increases, federal sources predict that the rates are slowing, thanks to conservation and efficiency.

LNG is also expensive—often as much as twice current domestic rates.
As with any commodity, price is dependent upon supply and demand. Though natural gas prices here have risen, they are still far less when compared to the global market for LNG. Others pay up to twice that of the U.S. and the loyalty of the LNG supply is to the dollar. The country willing to pay the most gets the most gas. The global bidding war is constant.

LNG is Un-American and from Foreign Sources.
The vast majority, over two-thirds, of LNG is from sources in Russia and the Middle East, both unstable, and dictatorial about energy control. While is it is true that one proposal seeks to bring LNG from Trinidad and Tobago, the source is from offshore drilling and is causing harm to their waterways. Moreover, the long-term supply there is uncertain and once diminished, would cause suppliers to switch to other major sources, such as Russia and the Middle East.

Worst Case Scenario, if we need LNG, there is already a glut of existing LNG import capacity.
The current U.S. import capacity of LNG, which can supply the east coast, stands at nearly 20 billion cubic feet per day. The most the entire U.S. imported was a little over two billion cubic feet per day. Most ports are twiddling their thumbs waiting for their LNG ships to come in. Indeed, the U.S. government estimates that by 2030, the import of LNG at existing ports will be 50% of their potential capacity. Clearly, new LNG import facilities are unwarranted and unjustifiable.

Why the Gas Rush to the Jersey Shore?
Then, why would corporations seek to build these terminals? It could be speculation, another the proverbial foot-in-the-door, or to enter and corner the large NJ/NY market. Whatever the reason, it would not be in the public interest and would re-direct limited resources and investments.

LNG will shift us from Energy Independence to Energy Dependence -- a policy that is antithetical to the national call for Energy Independence.
In the 20th century, the U.S. became dependent on foreign oil to drive our cars and heat our homes. The consequences are now painfully evident. In stark contrast, today, we are 97% self-reliant with domestic sources of natural gas that can be sustained up to 100 years or more. If we open our doors to LNG it will only serve to increase another dependency and addiction—only this time it will be power plants for electricity and many of our home heating and cooking needs. If we are lured into LNG, other governments, primarily Russia and the Middle East, will control our energy supply.

Shifting to a foreign dependency for fossil fuels is not a wise energy policy decision; in fact, it is antithetical to the national call for Energy Independence. As today’s energy needs prove, been there done that, let’s not be fooled again.

Many Coastal States have said, NO:
Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger (CA), Governor Rell (CT), and Governor Paterson (NY) all rejected LNG facilities off their coasts. Governor Corzine will have the up or down vote on these NJ Shore proposals.

JCAA Protects the Fisheries and Rejects the Proposals:
Jersey Coast Anglers Association has been essential to the campaign to oppose and stop these LNG facilities. Campaign groups meet monthly.

Take action right now to stop the LNG ports and the industrialization of the ocean

1. Sign the petition at http://www.thepetitionsite.com/petition/689151878. Citizens of all ages can sign.
2. Write a letter to the editor of your local newspaper, using the information above as talking points.
3. Learn more about "Insanity Island," Exxon’s "Floater," and the "Liberty" project at www.cleanoceanaction.org.

[News Contents] [Top]