Tag Archives: Economy

Kinder Morgan tries stealth pipeline expansion in Massachusetts

Spectra competitor Kinder Morgan is trying to fly under residents’ radar to gouge its hundred-foot Tennessee Gas Pipeline (TGP) right of way through Massachusetts. This is another $3 billion boondoggle that, like Spectra’ Sabal Trail pipeline through the southeast, could easily be replaced by solar power and conservation, which would keep LNG export from running up the price of existing methane gas supplies.

Nick Miller wrote for Nashoba Publishing 11 July 2014, Why Kinder Morgan fears an informed public,

Kinder Morgan is proposing to build a large, high pressure natural gas pipeline through 45 towns in Massachusetts, including Groton.

More than five month ago, agents of this company entered the town of Groton and began requesting that affected residents sign survey permission forms. They did not disclose Continue reading Kinder Morgan tries stealth pipeline expansion in Massachusetts

Sustainable Spectra? Like healthy cigarettes?

What company prints its sustainability report on wind-powered paper, yet pipes a greenhouse gas 20 times worse than CO2? Yep, it’s Spectra Energy, also bragging about how respectful they are to Sabal Trail “stakeholders”. Selling fracked methane through a 36-inch pipe in a hundred-foot gash through forests and wetlands with a thousand-foot explosive radius is like selling cigarettes and claiming you’re for good health. Tobacco companies can’t get away with that any more, and why should fossil fuel companies?

On the very last page of a 16-page report, 2013 Sustainability Highlights Report, Spectra Energy says:

This paper is manufactured using clean, renewable wind-power energy and carbon offsets for additional savings.

That’s the only mention of wind or renewable energy in the document, while solar power is not mentioned even once.

And look at Spectra’s Purpose on page 2: Continue reading Sustainable Spectra? Like healthy cigarettes?

Pipelines bust mortgages

Mortgage effects of fracking and methane pipelines have been a concern for more than two years now. Do you want a fracked methane pipeline through your property that you might want to mortgage someday or already have a mortgage on?

Ian Urbina wrote for the New York times 19 October 2011, Rush to Drill for Natural Gas Creates Conflicts With Mortgages,

Mr. May said the issue was causing “a high level of concern for prudent banks and lenders.” He and other bankers have also questioned how the growing grid of buried pipelines that carry natural gas from wells to consumers will comply with mortgage rules. A separate report from the Congressional Research Service, the research arm of Congress, said signing a drilling lease without prior approval on a property with a mortgage owned or guaranteed by Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac “generally will be considered an act of default under the mortgage.”

That could give either of the federally run companies the right to demand immediate payment of the full loan and even foreclose on the property if the owner cannot pay, the report said.

-jsq

It seems that they just draw lines at random –James Ryder via Sen. Marco Rubio

Florida’s other Senator just intervened with FERC on behalf of a landowner who has been trying to get reasonable solutions out of Spectra Energy since at least December. Sabal Trail is trying to force their unnecessary pipeline through this Brooks County, Georgia property among others that already have a gas pipeline: this one also already has an FPL power line. Why should FPL get to deface anybody’s property for both a power line and a pipeline while destroying wetlands and trees? Why do we think this will be the last pipeline if it is allowed to go in? As the Ryders ask, “If this was your farm, how would you like it divided?” How about not at all?

Filed with FERC 6 June 2014 as Senator Marco Rubio submits comments re the Southeast Market Pipelines Project under PF14-1. Florida Senator Bill Nelson intervened on behalf of Amelia Longley back on 1 November 2013.

Cover letter Continue reading It seems that they just draw lines at random –James Ryder via Sen. Marco Rubio

Duke Energy doesn’t need Sabal Trail fracked methane pipeline

Even Duke Energy thinks the Sabal Trail pipeline is not necessary.

Pat Faherty wrote 30 May 2014 for the Citrus County Chronicle, Natural-gas plant not tied to pipeline completion (I added the images and links),

Construction of Duke Energy’s $1.5 billion power plant in Citrus County is not dependent on completion of the controversial Sabal Trail natural gas pipeline.

Duke filed a petition Tuesday with the Florida Public Service Commission for an affirmative determination of need for its Citrus County combined-cycle power plant.

That’s the same 27 May 2014 filing that was supposed to show Sabal Trail fueling Duke’s plant, but Continue reading Duke Energy doesn’t need Sabal Trail fracked methane pipeline

Build FPL’s natural gas pipeline or not? –Palm Beach Post

FPL’s hometown newspaper never mentions solar or wind in an opinion piece asking whether you think the Sabal Trail fracked methane pipeline is a good idea. You can comment directly in the newspaper. Maybe you’d like to send your comments to FERC, as well.

Palm Beach Post Opinion Staff wrote yesterday, Should FPL’s natural gas pipeline be built?

NextEra Energy, parent of Florida Power & Light, is contracting with Spectra Energy to run a natural gas pipleine 591 miles through the heart of the state, ending in Martin County.

FPL President Eric Silagy says the company needs the additional pipeline to provide redundancy and added capacity to the state’s existing natural gas pipleines. FPL is now the nation’s largest consumer of natural gas, he says.

It’s curious how FPL’s own projections in its 10-year plan don’t support Continue reading Build FPL’s natural gas pipeline or not? –Palm Beach Post

The Halliburton fracking Loophole and LNG exports

So FE proposes to follow the law, NEPA, specifically. How about we also repeal the Halliburton Loophole in the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPA2005) that enables fracking and LNG exports?

The Office of Fossil Energy (FE)’s parent U.S. Department of Energy (DoE)’s writeup on EPA2005 doesn’t mention its fracking effects or liquid natural gas (LNG) storage or export. FERC’s writeup spells out that EPA2005 not just enabled but required LNG export:

Mandatory within 60 days after date of enactment

Continue reading The Halliburton fracking Loophole and LNG exports

LNG export approval pause puts FERC on hook for EIAs

FERC won’t be able to say it doesn’t know anything about LNG exports anymore, with this plan to require FERC environmental assessments before FE authorization. But this does nothing about the FE authorizations aleady granted, including the three at the end of the Transco -> Sabal -> FSC pipeline. A better idea: cancel LNG exports and build solar power instead.

Jennifer A. Dlouhy wrote for Fuelfix 30 May 2014, Winners and losers in feds’ new gas export review plan,

The Energy Department intends to scrap a two-year-old approach for considering applications to export LNG to countries that don’t have free trade agreements with the United States. Instead of reviewing them in the order they were filed, as the agency largely does now, the Energy Department would first tackle those that have already cleared an expensive, time-consuming environmental assessment typically done by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

Sen. Ed Markey’s statement of 29 May 2014, Markey Commends DOE Move to Study Impacts of Large-scale Natural Gas Exports, heads in the right direction but doesn’t go far enough: Continue reading LNG export approval pause puts FERC on hook for EIAs

LNG export to Europe with the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP)?

More “free trade” LNG export destinations from Florida will open up if the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) passes, to the 28 EU member countries:

Many of those countries currently get fracked gas from Russia:

Continue reading LNG export to Europe with the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP)?

Food and Water Watch against LNG exports

FWW has been on the case against H.R. 6 that would authorize LNG exports to all WTO member countries since that bill passed the subcommittee in early April, before it passed the main committee April 30th.

Food & Water Watch press release 9 April 2014, House Subcommittee’s Approval of LNG Exports Means More Money for Big Oil and Gas, More Fracking In U.S. Communities: Statement of Food & Water Watch Executive Director, Wenonah Hauter,

Washington, D.C. — “On Wednesday, the U.S. House’s Energy and Commerce Committee’s Subcommittee on Energy and Power voted in favor of a bill to export liquefied natural gas (LNG) abroad under the guise of aiding Ukraine. But this bill, H.R.6, would only serve to increase profits for the oil and gas industry, greatly accelerating fracking here at home, endangering American communities, public health and the climate. We strongly recommend that both houses of Congress reject any and all plans to export LNG overseas.

“Selling LNG abroad will drive up the industry’s profit margins, ultimately increasing gas prices here in the U.S.. Ramping up fracking in the U.S., Continue reading Food and Water Watch against LNG exports