Another thing that ought to be emphasized is the financial scam. When people lose property by eminent domain, it’s supposed to be justified by the public need, the public good. But there is not a domestic need for this gas; the actual need is on the part of gas drillers and frackers, who have been in the red through the whole decade of the fracking “miracle.”

They need higher prices so they can pay their creditors. The pipelines offer two avenues to higher prices: first, while FERC doesn’t mention it and neither do the companies in public speech, the big word in industry conferences is “export.” The price is much higher abroad.

It’s no guarantee though, as our gas once compressed and shipped and readied for trucking, is going to cost considerably more than it does here, and will have to compete with Russian and Middle Eastern sources. So is the “public need” a need of the public in Europe or Asia?

Not good enough when your land is being taken and you’re forced to live next to all the disruption of installing a pipeline, and then the concerns about leaks, explosions and fires. More so if some of those places “need” our gas because they aren’t about to damaged their OWN land with fracking.

But the harm done to those in the vicinity of pipeline only starts with this. Next is that if they are gas customers, a new pipeline will NOT bring them cheaper gas as the companies claim — far from it.

Their costs will likely go up, for two reasons. One is that the point of the pipelines is to relieve the glut of gas from the Marcellus. The glut is keeping the price low — once it runs down the pipes to points south, east and north, the price will naturally rise. Secondly, the pipeline builders get a sweet cost-plus deal from FERC — they get to charge their ratepayers for every cent of their costs plus 14 or 15% profit. I wonder whether they get to include the cost of fines, and add 14% to that?

Mary Wildfire, Roane County, WV