Dangerous Delaware River LNG Port Proposal Surfaces Again

Plans for a liquefied natural gas port along the Delaware River at the Repauno site in Greenwich Township have re-emerged three years after a similar proposal faced in the face of public opposition, based on SEC filings. The new proposal by New Fortress Energy on the site it owns would allow cargo ships containing combustible LNG to sail through Delaware Bay and under the Delaware Memorial Bridge. While New Fortress Energy did not identify a location for the proposed LNG port, filings indicate it would be along the Delaware River and 195 miles from its natural gas liquifying facility northwest of Scranton, Pennsylvania. That points to the same Repauno site targeted by the Fortress Investment Group three years ago.

“Plans for a LNG port are heating up again at the Repauno site. This is a very dangerous proposal that could have devastating effects on people and the environment. A port along the river where  combustible fuel like LNG is being transported and stored brings great danger to the region from potential spills and explosions. These are very real concerns, not just remote possibilities. Just one spark can set off an enormous explosion,” said Jeff Tittel, director of the New Jersey Sierra Club. “Even a 1 in a million risk is too much for an unnecessary, dangerous project, especially when so many lives are at stake.”

The New Jersey Repauno site, which is where DuPont used to have a chemical plant and a dynamite factory, is owned by New Fortress Energy and would be used for the importation of motor vehicles and LNG.  Several postings for job openings at the site have emerged in recent months, including for a construction engineer with LNG expertise. The Army Corps of Engineers has sought permission to build a pier at the site.

“When this proposal came up three years ago, they said they wanted to build a terminal on the site. We said they were going to build a LNG port. They said no. They lied then, we should not trust them now.  The port would sit along the river near densely populated areas. There could be many thousands of people harmed or killed by any type of spill or explosion from a truck, or tanker, or storage tank. People will be living 200 feet from the facility at all times. The results would be catastrophic,” said Tittel.

Pressurized trucks would transport LNG to the site by the thousands. A leak from any of those trucks could instantly kill everything within 550 yards. A fireball could have a radius as large as a mile-and-a-half. The blast zone from an explosion could spread as wide as two-and-a-half miles.

“They are playing Russian Roulette with these trucks, and they are a disaster waiting to happen. These trucks will be bombs on wheels, maybe hundreds a day going to the site, traveling miles and miles in all kinds of weather, through our neighborhoods and along our highways. The potential blast zone from an explosion will threaten residents all along the way,” said Tittel. “Bridge and river traffic would be greatly disrupted by a LNG port. The National Guard would have to close off bridges to allow tankers through, as happens in Boston. The shallowness of the Delaware River adds to the risk. In 2004 the Athos oil tanker struck a submerged anchor that had fallen off a barge and no one even knew was there while preparing to dock in Philadelphia, spilling 230,000 gallons of oil. We do not need LNG tanker traffic on a river with those kinds of hazards.”

Liquefied Natural Gas is highly volatile and threatens contamination of the river and drinking water supply from even one spill from any source. The LNG port would also only feed ongoing reliance on fossil fuels and encourage dangerous fracking methods to extract natural gas from formations such as the Marcellus shale in Pennsylvania.

“A LNG port leads to more use of fossil fuels and an increase in greenhouse gases. It will prompt more fracking that continues to harm the environment. Any method of transporting and storing LNG is dangerous. Storage tanks can leak and explode. We’ll have truck bombs riding through our neighborhoods, and tanker bombs floating along the river. The explosion of a natural gas storage tank in Cleveland in 1944 wiped out 160 acres of homes and businesses, and killed more than 100. This project is unneeded and will cause unnecessary damage,” said Jeff Tittel, director of the New Jersey Sierra Club.  “This is another reason why we need an immediate moratorium on fossil-fuel infrastructure projects. We stop a pipeline in the Pinelands, then a LNG port is proposed. The cycle will not end without a moratorium.”