Back in May Sabal Trail and FSC argued fracking wasn’t relevant to their pipelines. How can they argue that now that FPL wants to frack frack Oklahoma for methane for those pipelnes proposed to gouge through Alabama, Florida, and Georgia?
Mary Ellen Klas, Miami Herald, 1 December 2014, FPL asks permission to drill for natural gas,
At a hearing on Monday, the state’s largest utility asked regulators for permission to charge customers up to $750 million a year to form a partnership with an Oklahoma oil and gas company because, it argues, the investment would help FPL stabilize fuel prices and save customers money.
That’s a very interesting thing for FPL to say, just after OPEC let oil and gas prices drop to levels that threaten fracking operations.
The actual proposed fracking partnership purchase isn’t new; it’s the same one reported here back in August from FPL PR of 25 June 2014. And FPL is buying its own parent NextEra Energy’s part of PetroQuest’s Woodford Shale Oklahoma fracking operation. Oklahoma: already seeing lots of new earthquakes, possibly because of fracking.
Back in Florida, the Miami Herald continues:
In tapping a well that already produces gas, FPL argues, customers are unlikely to see price increases because exploration costs will be offset by savings from the investment — the first time any utility has asked to have its customers pay for gas exploration.
The opponents make a lot more sense:
They argued at a day-long hearing that the risks of operating the hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, outweigh the rewards. They said FPL can’t be sure that the natural gas wells will produce enough gas to meet its needs and customers will shoulder the costs of dry wells, environmental impacts and market changes for the next 50 years.
“Fifty years is a long time to receive guaranteed profits on something that’s not guaranteed,” said Eric Sayler, an attorney for the Office of Public Counsel, which represents the public in cases before the Public Service Commission.
He said the idea is an attempt by FPL to earn a guaranteed profit on the investment and have the risk borne by customers, not shareholders.
“No other utility has attempted to put this in its base rate,” he said.
FPL’s argument emphasizes “stabilize the cost of natural gas”.
So does FPL’s purported co-customer for the Sabal Trail pipeline:
Other companies are watching. Chief financial officer for Duke Energy Corp. Steve Young told Bloomberg News last month that his company is studying FPL’s proposal carefully because it is also considering asking regulators to let it invest in gas exploration to lock-in prices and earn profits from investments.
I don’t know about you, but I’m not interested in FPL fracking Oklahoma to gouge a pipelne through Alabama, Florida, and Georgia for the profit of FPL and Duke Energy. Somehow I doubt the Georgia city customers of MGAG were asked about this fracking deal before MGAG allegedly made a deal to buy Sabal Trail fracked methane.
Back in May Sabal Trail and FSC argued fracking wasn’t relevant to their pipelines. Susan Salisbury, Palm Beach Post, 5 May 2014, Fracking not an issue with pipeline for FPL’s plants, firms say
In documents filed Friday and Monday with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, officials for both Southeast Connection and Sabal Trail said the impacts of natural gas production, such as exploration, drilling and processing are not generally considered by FERC.
How can Sabal Trail and FSC argue fracking is not relevant to their pipelnes now that FPL wants to frack? Do you want FPL to frack Oklahoma for methane in a pipelne gouged through Alabama, Florida, and Georgia? If not, you can contact FERC and your elected and appointed officials and the press to say no fracking and no pipeline.