Gov. Justice has a secret MOU in his pocket!

From an Article by Troy N. Miller, Truthout*  Op-Ed, November 28, 2017

The Trump administration wants to allow China to invest more than $80 billion in West Virginia’s gas fields. Whether it grows West Virginia’s economy or not, investors will expect returns.

One full year after getting elected, there is no denying that Trump is doing important things to support West Virginia’s long-standing regime of fossil fuel feudalism — by any economic manipulation necessary.

But even as Trump’s administration scraps Obama-era regulations and shoves the costs of business onto West Virginia’s families, coal and nuclear are still struggling to stay competitive with other sources of energy (such as unsubsidized renewables).

The administration’s solution to that reality reeks of big government cronyism: Make the federal government pay higher rates to those sources so that those sources can continue to operate, even though they’re uncompetitive.

But the big news recently is the administration’s plan to bolster the natural gas industry through a deal with China. Instead of tough trade talks with China involving new hefty tariffs or value-added taxes, the Trump administration, with Gov. Jim Justice, Sen. Shelley Moore Capito and Sen. Joe Manchin’s cheerleading, wants to allow China to invest more than $80 billion in West Virginia’s gas fields.

It’s a huge number for a state with an annual GDP closer to $75 billion — but it’s important to remember that this is an investment, not a grant.

Yes, that’s money coming into our economy. And that money may cause the economy to swell — but there’s little chance it will cause the economy to grow.

The fundamental issue here is that investors, foreign or domestic, expect returns. And they expect those returns whether West Virginia’s economy grows or not.

It’s all but guaranteed that more money will leave the state than will come in over the next 20 years. The question is, will we tax that wealth before it leaves the state? Will we tax it enough to pay for the clean up, when we reach the 21st year? Will we tax this investment enough to rebuild our roads and bridges? To bolster our public education? To rebuild when the next floods happen?

Is there any stipulation on this proposed deal that would require China Energy to hire locally? Is there any stipulation that they’ll build their machinery locally? That they’ll use local vendors?

Or will they do like they’ve done in regions of Africa and other resource-rich regions around the world, and bring in their own workers to work their equipment — while dictating the terms of agreements to any local vendors they do business with?

Is there any stipulation that these firms keep our waterways clean, our roads safe and that they act as good members of the community?

Seems unlikely, since those stipulations don’t seem to apply even to the fossil fuel firms that currently operate in West Virginia — the ones based out of Oklahoma or North Dakota, or anywhere but West Virginia.

But it’s tough to know. As far as I’ve been able to find, the text of this deal has not been made public.

Foreign investments have always been part of a “race to the bottom” strategy — whether it’s the US investing in South Asia and Mexico, Germany investing in South America, or China investing in Africa and West Virginia.

Like Lucy holding the football for Charlie Brown, the financial elites who have benefited from the last 40 years of international trade (including the current president) want us to believe without question that this agreement will ultimately be different for West Virginia’s working families.

But this agreement seems to follow a very basic economic model, one older than the United States itself.

1.) We’ll produce the natural gas for Chinese firms.

2.) The Chinese firms will produce the valuable finished goods (probably plastics).

3.) They’ll sell those goods back to us at a massive mark-up.

And based on history, what will West Virginia have to show once the gas is harvested and the profits funneled out?

Toxic groundwater, more abandoned factories and a new generation of citizens to foot the bill for this deal’s true costs to West Virginia’s communities and to the environment.

* – Originally from Wheeling, West Virginia, Troy N. Miller is a writer and radio producer living in Washington, DC.

Note: >>> Support from readers provides Truthout with vital funds to keep investigating what mainstream media won’t cover. Fund more stories like this by donating now!

No LPG Storage Under Seneca Lake, Watkins Glen, NY

Crestwood backs out of natural gas storage plan — Withdrawal does not include liquid propane storage

From an Article by David L. Shaw, Finger Lakes Times, May 11, 2017

READING — Arlington Storage Company, a subsidiary of Crestwood Midstream, has abandoned its plan to expand natural gas storage in unlined salt caverns on the west shore of Seneca Lake in Schuyler County.

The dropping of the plan was including in Arlington’s bi-weekly environmental compliance report filed with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) in Washington.

“Despite its best efforts, Arlington Storage Company has not been successful in securing long-term contractual commitments from customers that would support completion of the Gallery 2 Expansion Project,” the company said in its statement with FERC.

“While demand for high deliverability natural gas storage services remains robust in New York, bids for firm storage capacity which Arlington has received from time to time are not adequate to support the investment required to bring the project to completion,” it stated.

“Accordingly, Arlington has discontinued efforts to complete the Gallery 2 Expansion Project.”

The news was well received by opponents of the project, such as Gas Free Seneca. “This is a victory for the people of the region who have fought for years to protect Seneca Lake and the Finger Lakes from industrialized gas storage,” said Yvonne Taylor, vice president of Gas Free Seneca.

“This ill-conceived plan has cast a shadow on the region’s burgeoning tourism industry from the start and today we celebrate our victory against Goliath,” Taylor said in a press release.

Deborah Goldberg, an attorney with Earthjustice, has been representing Gas Free Seneca in its fight.

She said she will ask FERC to rescind its 2014 project approval. “The admitted failure to secure customers establishes that there is no need for Arlington to expand,” Goldberg said.

Joseph Campbell, president of Gas Free Seneca, said Crestwood ”should see the writing on the wall” and withdraw its pending application to store liquid propane in salt caverns as well as the natural gas storage plan.

Crestwood owns a 576-acre site on Route 14 a few miles north of Watkins Glen.

In August 2010, FERC authorized Arlington to acquire a depleted natural gas production field in Reading and develop it for operation as the Seneca Lake Storage Project.

The facility is connected to two interstate gas pipelines.

On May 15, 2014, FERC gave Arlington the go-ahead to expand the project by connecting two interconnected salt caverns previously used for LPG storage, increasing the facility’s capacity from 1.45 to 2 billion cubic feet.

That order require the expansion to be constructed and put in service by May 15, 2016.

In January 2016, Arlington requested a two-year extension. They told FERC it has not proceeded because the state Department of Environmental Conservation had not acted on its application for an underground storage permit. When filing for an extension, Arlington officials noted the DEC cannot issue the permit until it has received a report from the state geologist.

The state had no one in that position at the time.

Gas Free Seneca appealed the May 16, 2016 decision by FERC to allow the two year extension.

FERC needs unbiased Commissioners

Pennsylvania Public Utility Commissioner Robert Powelson hopes to serve on the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

From an Article by Marie Cusick, StateImpact Pennsylvania, March 21, 2017

One of Pennsylvania’s top utility regulators says people opposing pipeline projects are engaged in a “jihad” to keep natural gas from reaching new markets.

Pennsylvania Public Utility Commissioner Robert Powelson was speaking to gas industry representatives Tuesday at the Upstream PA conference in State College.

“The jihad has begun,” he told the audience. “At the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission groups actually show up at commissioners homes to make sure we don’t get this gas to market. How irresponsible is that?”

Powelson, a Republican, has served on the PUC since 2008. He’s reportedly being considered by the Trump administration for an appointment to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). The independent agency oversees the interstate transmission of electricity, natural gas and oil. It’s supposed to have five commissioners, but following a resignation last month, it only has two — not enough for the required quorum to make decisions.

Powelson told the industry representatives they have friends in the federal government who want to provide regulatory certainty to businesses. He said he met with President Donald Trump’s staff and would be honored serve as a FERC commissioner if asked.

“I think it would be an honor for Pennsylvania,” he said. “I certainly have the pedigree and resume to do the job.”

He went on to praise the CEO of Dominion– the company building a multi-billion dollar gas export terminal along the Chesapeake Bay in Lusby, Maryland. It’s expected to come online at the end of this year.

“It’s a great success story,” Powelson said.

He then sharply criticized Maryland Gov. Larry Hogan (R), who called for a ban on fracking last week.

“I find it a little shocking he would come out against fracking because when you look at the pipeline flows into Cove Point, it’s a play on Marcellus Shale gas,” said Powelson. “There are lots of uneducated people around this industry.”

Powelson cited the numerous benefits the shale gas boom has brought the country, including falling carbon dioxide emissions and lower consumer energy prices. He outlined his support for streamlining the pipeline permitting process, by making changes to the National Environmental Policy Act and removing obstacles to eminent domain.

“Over the next decade we have a very unique opportunity as an industry and as government leaders,” Powelson said. “And we’re gonna do it in a way that we’re not cutting corners on the environmental piece and pipeline safety.”

A growing number of environmental and citizen groups are opposing the expansion of fossil fuel infrastructure, citing climate change and other concerns. In recent years, protesters have repeatedly disrupted FERC’s public meetings. But the pipeline industry also faces pressure from some conservatives, who feel the use of eminent domain tramples private property rights.

Powelson sidestepped questions about the use eminent domain, saying only that he believes FERC should do a better job making sure people’s voices are heard.

“I think there are lot of areas for conversation around pipeline siting,” he said. “And I’m keeping an open mind to it.”

See also: www.FrackCheckWV.net

Grand Tetons National Park in NW Wyoming

They Want to Disturb our National Treasures

Dear Friends of the Environment –   February 1, 2017

Donald Trump’s Republican Congress wants our National Parks to become a drilling and fracking free-for-all.

House Republicans have introduced a bill that would allow oil and gas drilling in more than 40 National Parks — Grand Teton National Park, Everglades National Park, and Mesa Verde National Park, just to name three.

It’s insane. Canoe past an oil rig. Hike around a fracking well. And WHEN a spill happens, they destroy the habitats of endangered animals already on the brink.

They don’t care — they’ll do anything to line big oil’s pockets.

The Sierra Club has worked for 125 years to protect these natural treasures, and we’re not letting them fall prey to polluters without a fight. We need your help URGENTLY to stop this disgusting bill — can we count on your emergency gift now?

With parks like Grand Teton, Everglades, and Mesa Verde vulnerable to drilling, we don’t have a moment to waste.

Trump has, since the early days of his campaign, promised to turn our federal parklands over to his billionaire fossil fuel backers at the expense of human health. Now his Republican Congress is falling over themselves to help him do it.

Wiping out current, common-sense drilling rules would devastate our national parks. They’d be subject to poorly regulated exploration. Polluters could drill without informing park employees or visitors — and escape responsibility for leaks and spills.

The Sierra Club is fighting to preserve our last wild places — and the people who enjoy them, and the wildlife who call them home — but we urgently need your help to do it. Please, help us stop this ill-conceived and inhumane bill with a donation now.

Please, help us fight this outrageous anti-environmental legislation now.

Thanks for standing with the Sierra Club to save our natural heritage which, once drilled, fracked or deforested, cannot be replaced.

Sincerely,

Michael Brune, Executive Director, Sierra Club

2101 Webster Street, Suite 1300, Oakland, CA 94612

See also:  www.FrackCheckWV.net

Gas Pipelines & Valves (Wetzel County)

Push for Pipelines – Part 2

From an Article by Bill Hughes, Hoots & Hollers Blog (OVEC), January 28, 2016

Push for Pipelines – Part 2. (Read Part 1 here.)

How did we get to this point? Let’s review our first contact with the land agent representing EQT.

In February of 2014, the EQT land agent asked my wife and I for permission to walk our property for a preliminary evaluation of a possible route for their 30” high pressure pipe which would slice our land south to north, resulting in habitat fragmentation.

When opponents of piplines list their concerns, among them is habitat fragmentation. They usually mean splitting up the forest where the deer and squirrel and birds and other critters live. But this was my habitat EQT was planning on fragmenting.

Keep in mind that almost every landowner around here has been contacted by mail, phone or in person, many times by a great variety of land agents waving some flash of cash with verbal assurance that all will be well. The normal gas industry land agent’s procedure is to promise untold wealth. The land agent’s goal is to get a signature on a loosely-worded gas company boilerplate right-of-way land-lease contract with terms favorable to the gas company. Landowners around here have all heard a pitch that amounts to:

Just lease this, sell this, sign here. You can surely trust us, after all, we are only a multi-billion-dollar international, just down-the-street, friendly Gas Company, and all we want is complete control over much of your land indefinitely…. So, just trust us. Why worry? Sign here. Take the money. Your grand kids will not miss a little strip of dirt anyway. Besides it is mostly just a hillside. And very steep at that. Yes, sign here!

Despite this kind of pitch, I was not ready to give them surveying permission, but I was willing to let them do a preliminary walk through to hang surveyor ribbons. We had not been shopping around for a new pipeline. Weren’t in the market for one at all. But since a very large high pressure natural gas pipeline would affect all my neighbors, I agreed to allow a preliminary walk with them in exchange for getting my questions answered.

I did not give EQT permission to drive stakes or pins or anything more permanent. And even prior to the walk-through, I wanted some answers to my questions. The responses to my questions would benefit my neighbors also.

Typical Questions to ask any Gas or Pipeline Co. Wanting to put a Pipeline on Your Property:

Download (Pipelinetypicalquestions.pdf, 132KB)

Whether you want any of the letters, visits and offerings from the land agents or not, these offers usually can’t be ignored. If you fail to object or question the company’s proposals, you could be left with fewer choices later. This is because the companies seek FERC permission for many of the proposed interstate transmission pipelines.

FERC is the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. FERC is not noted for caring about communities. It’s noted more for its direct ties to the industry it is supposed to regulate and its rubber-stamping of permits. Note that there are several movements afoot to fight FERC. Here’s one proposal for the reform of FERC. And, for what it is worth, here’s FERC’s own booklet: An Interstate Natural Gas Facility on My Land? What Do I Need to Know? A notable excerpt:

The company negotiates a right-of-way easement and compensation for the easement with each landowner. Landowners may be paid for loss of certain uses of the land during and after construction, loss of any other resources, and any damage to property. If the Commission (FERC) approves the project and no agreement with the landowner is reached, the company may acquire the easement under eminent domain (a right given to the company by statute to take private land for Commission-authorized use) with a court determining compensation.

It’s the legal power of eminent domain that can leave you little choice, when (so far “when” and not “if” has been the operative word) FERC grants the final approval for the proposed pipeline.

Note that just filing an application with FERC does not automatically grant the company eminent domain, at least so far in West Virginia. But the potential for eminent domain gives the landsmen the assumption of power over landowners. Eminent domain has been called state-sanctioned robbery of private property by corporations for profit. And so, as one might expect, the landsmen never fail to mention that future possibility, as in, “You might as well give in now since, inevitably we will be able to take your land anyway whether you like it or not.”

I never did get answers to most of my questions and I never saw the surveyors. They came and left their telltale colored ribbons. There were a few e-mails and phone conversations. I was told the pipeline would be 30 inches in diameter. They wanted 125-foot construction right-of-way and 75-foot permanent right-of-way.

At a public meeting, an EQT rep said the closest they would run the pipe to any residence would be 37.5 feet. That number is correct. I asked twice. They said they had the right to but, maybe, probably, would try not to put a pipe that close to a residence. But they could. But they would prefer not to. The 37.5 feet is just one half of the permanent right-of-way of 75 feet.

But then, a few months later, a very short e-mail said that the complete pipeline route had changed and they would not be at all near my property. Maybe my hills were too steep, or maybe my questions were even steeper. Or maybe just too many questions. But EQT said they were no longer interested in my parcel of Almost Heaven, West Virginia. Now that was good news. For now we could enjoy our privacy and peace and quiet.

But, wait there’s more! Read all about it in Push for Pipelines – Part 3, here.

See also: www.FrackCheckWV.net

MVP & ACP to disturb mountains, rivers & streams

Atlantic Coast Pipeline — Blast Radius – Evacuation Zone

Review by S. Tom Bond, Resident Farmer, Lewis County, WV, May 14, 2016

Below is a summary of a really great piece of work from the Dominion Pipeline Monitoring Coalition! It is in splendid detail, it is clear as a bell, and it is easy to understand. I say that it is really, really great.

The proposed  42 inch Atlantic Coast Pipeline (ACP) runs through Lewis County (WV) about 3 (three) miles southwest of my property. Just west of us a few miles is a place where the Mountain Valley Pipeline and The Momentum Gathering Pipeline box in the tree farm of Tom Berlin, a retired Environmental Science professor, formerly at Alderson-Broaddus College.

Monday I am leading about 20 Virginia Tech students over an area close to Tom Berlin’s to see the present Lightburn Station and will point out the location of the proposed Hollick Station of ACP. It is the first on what is called the ACP, but a large diameter pipe extends northwest of it. Dominion paid $3M for a smallish farm for it, a place where the only reasonable use is fox hunting, it is so grown up. It is not marked on the map, but I can provide a screen grab of the location, along the Harrison-Lewis line near Lightburn Station, which shows up clearly.

I am going to talk about externalized costs, a term used in economics for the costs to others resulting from the project, such things as medical expenses, property damages, injuries to adjacent enterprises, and costs which must be born by government, etc. I think environment impacts will be covered well by others at other points. Being a property owner, I am acutely aware of externalized costs, and they falsify the cost benefit ratios used to justify this kind of project.

>  >  >  >  >  >  >  >  >

On 5/14/16 , Rick Webb wrote:

It has been suggested that FERC might be responsive to concerns about the impact of the proposed ACP on human safety and property values, and that maps showing the extent of the blast radius and the evacuation zone might be effective in communicating such concerns.

Here is a quick guide to using the DPMC’s Atlantic Coast Pipeline – Environmental Mapping System to create maps showing the blast radius and evacuation zone in relation to areas of interest and concern. Screen shots are very informative as attachments.

(1) Go to the DPMC website, www.pipelineupdate.org.

Select ACP-ENVIRONMENTAL MAPPING SYSTEM in the right-hand sidebar. You will see the pipeline route alternatives in the region from the beginning of the pipeline in WV to Buckingham County in VA. This initial map view displays the route alternatives submitted to FERC on 10/30/15, 4/15/16, and 5/6/16. (see ACP-EMS-1)

(2) Display the part of the map and the layers of interest.

Zoom in and pan using the mouse and/or on-screen controls. Select the icons at the upper right to change the base map and select layers to display. The example shows the Stuarts Draft area, with a US Topo Map base map, The selected layers are the 4/15/16 ACP route and the Blast Radius and Evacuation Zone. The transparency of the Blast Radius and Evacuation Zone has been adjusted. (see STUARTS DRAFT)

Note that clicking on map features (such as the Blast Radius and Evacuation Zone) opens popup windows that provide information about the selected feature. Also note that some layers are not displayed at all map scales.

(3) Print or save your map.

The online mapping system provides options for adding text to map views and printing or saving as a pdf. Another option is to capture a screen shot of the map that can be edited in another program. (see STUARTS DRAFT MAP PRINTOUT)

****

Finally, note that the ACP-Environmental Mapping System includes many other layers and base map options. Another example  is focused on the Wintergreen/Spruce Creek area of Nelson County in Virginia. In this view property parcels are displayed. By zooming-in further the impact to individual properties can be highlighted. (see WINTERGREEN-SPRUCE CREEK)

Rick Webb, Coordinator
Dominion Pipeline Monitoring Coalition
rwebb.dpmc@gmail.com

Fracking is Climate Change and Plastics Pollution

Indiana University researchers say fracking fears likely to grow as opponents push for bans

From the Press Release, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN, December 16, 2015

With voters and courts weighing the future of fracking, a practice used to extract oil and gas, Indiana University researchers say some Americans are apprehensive about the technology and may grow more so.

Opponents of unconventional gas development — also known as UGD and including but not limited to the controversial process of hydraulic fracturing or fracking — have pushed for statewide or local bans of the practice in Colorado, Ohio, Michigan, New York, California and other states.

“There is ample reason to predict growing public concerns about risk as UGD expands in the United States,” said study author John Rupp, a senior research scientist at the Indiana Geological Survey and an adjunct faculty member at IU’s School of Public and Environmental Affairs.

Opposition is intensifying even though the researchers point out there hasn’t been a highly publicized accident similar in scope to the Deepwater Horizon offshore oil blowout and spill. They say such an unlikely event would trigger even stronger demands to prohibit the technique for use in extracting oil and gas from shale deposits.

One key, they say, will be establishing a culture of transparency by the industry and its regulators. “Concerns tend to escalate when information about potential hazards associated with the practice are not fully disclosed,” Rupp said.

A bright spot in the findings is that leaders of the energy industry, along with municipal and regional government officials who see unconventional gas development as an economic booster, have the opportunity to help shape the discussion.

“Despite the fact that, in little more than a decade, UGD has made the U.S. the No. 1 gas producer in the world, surveys indicate many Americans don’t know much about it,” Rupp said. “That means proponents of the technology still have time to shape public understanding of the details of the practice and its benefits.”

Rupp and co-authors John D. Graham and Olga Schenk analyzed risk-perception and risk-governance theories and recent public opinion surveys. Their article, “Unconventional Gas Development in the USA: Exploring the Risk Perception Issues,” was published in the journal Risk Analysis.

The researchers say studies indicate people base their sense of risk on several factors including:

• Familiarity — Traffic accidents, for example, are more acceptable because they’re more familiar than an unconventional gas development incident.
• Voluntariness — When a hazard is imposed on a community without citizen consent, people are more apprehensive.
• Catastrophic potential — Perceived risk rises when a large amount of damage can occur at one time or location, even if the probability is low.
• Natural versus human-induced hazards — A greater sense of guilt is associated when humans are to blame.
• Impact on children and future generations — Concern is heightened when victims include children, pregnant women and people not yet born.

“The potential risks associated with UGD, such as drinking water contamination, would seem to activate virtually all of the risk-perception factors,” Graham said, noting that opponents have effectively elevated fears by emphasizing the scenario of drinking water polluted by migrating fracking chemicals.

Another potential trigger for increased opposition comes in the form of seismic activity. Scientists are studying whether the drilling/fracturing process and deep-well injection of unconventional gas development wastes can cause earthquakes. A major tremor that causes widespread damage or injuries will likely intensify the perception that unconventional gas development is risky.

While water contamination and seismicity top the concerns of environmentalists, the IU research team points out that residents who live in unconventional gas development areas have other worries.

“The concerns of residents living in close proximity to UGD require consideration,” Rupp said. “They may be concerned about daily nuisances such as traffic, congestion, odor and unwanted changes to the character of their community.”

To counter the likelihood that the perception of risk connected to unconventional gas development will grow, Graham, Rupp and Schenk urge government officials and the scientific community to take several steps:

• State regulatory systems must quickly ramp up. “To accomplish a high degree of public trust, state regulators must demonstrate that they can be both proactive in preventing problems and responsive to unexpected concerns,” the Risk Analysis article noted.
• Industry associations must require use of best practices and consider voluntary certification and other steps that encourage companies to emphasize safety and sustainability.
• National political figures must avoid turning unconventional gas development into a polarizing issue along political lines. President Barack Obama has taken a strong pro-gas position, irritating organized environmental advocates. “No matter their stance on UGD, Obama’s successor should listen to the concerns of the industry, regulators, environmentalists and local citizens,” Graham said. “Taking appropriate actions will diminish the perception of risk and, more importantly, the actual risk.”

Graham is dean of IU’s School of Public and Environmental Affairs. Schenk was a visiting researcher at SPEA and is now a policy officer for Germany’s Federal Ministry for Economic Affairs and Energy.

Blast Zone 2000 feet for 42 inch MVP

Study refutes positive local effects of natural gas pipeline

From an Article by Pamela Pritt, Beckley Register-Herald, October 8, 2015

An 18-page study released (last week) by the Greenbrier River Watershed Association says that economic benefits of the Mountain Valley Pipeline, a natural gas pipeline slated to bisect Nicholas County and cut through portions of Summers, Greenbrier and Monroe counties, have been inflated by gas companies anxious to get their product to a market.

Dr. Stephen Phillips of Key-Log Economics, Charlottesville, Va., firm, wrote the study. Key-Log provides research “supplying rigorously developed ecological-economic information to shape and advance policy campaigns, as part of expert testimony, and for public education efforts,” according to its Linked-In account.

In addition, Key-Log is involved in program development by creating and delivering pilot programs to “help clients demonstrate and prepare to take full advantage of positive relationships between human and natural communities through such strategies as certification and labeling programs, payments for ecosystem services and nature-based marketing partnerships” and organizational development through low-cost-high impact strategy development,” the company’s Linked-In account says

EQT, the pipeline’s owner, released its own study in December 2014. The study says expenditures on goods and services during construction would “translate into job creation; economic benefits to West Virginia suppliers, their employees and the overall economy.” Further, the FTI said the MVP would bring operational benefits, requiring a skilled workforce for continued maintenance and generate annual property tax revenues. FTI’s study said both the state and the MVP passes through would be benefited from the “potential direct use of gas from the MVP project.”

The FTI study projects EQT will spend $712 million on equipment, materials, labor and services in West Virginia, creating nearly 4,000 jobs at the peak of construction in 2017 (560 of those “indirect jobs”). “Cumulatively, the MVP project would create more than 8.250 job-years over the course of construction,” the FTI study said. Once the pipeline is in service, the MVP would employ 54 people across the state “with average annual wages and benefits of almost $65,000.” Also, annual property taxes would amount to $14.6 million, or 16 percent of the total 2013 combined budgets for the 10 counties the MVP will pass through.

“(T)he MVP project could provide significant fuel cost savings to the residential, commercial and municipal sectors of Monroe, Summers and Webster counties through fuel switching,” the study said.

Key-Log’s study refutes each of those claims, saying the benefits to communities are overstated. Just as important, the Key-Log study said, “a full accounting of the likely costs (negative economic effects) must be developed, and its results must be compared to more realistic estimates of benefits.”

“Benefits during construction are overestimated due to inherent issues with the models used and the choice of the size of the study region,” the Key-Log study said, “in part due to overly optimistic assumptions about whether and to what extent” MVP would induce businesses and individuals too switch to natural gas from other fuels.

The Key-Log study said:

• Input-output analysis is inappropriately used to estimate long-term impacts, “resulting in bloated estimates of jobs ‘created’ by the ongoing operation and maintenance of the MVP.”

• Fuel-switching estimates are dependent on the level and volatility of future natural gas prices, and assuming because businesses and households could use gas, they would use gas

• Tax revenue projections do not take into account “downside financial risk” such as shale gas prices, competition, rising export costs and a reduction in surrounding property value because of the pipeline.

The Key-Log study said FTI “assumed a static economy,” meaning no pricing or labor changes or changes in consumer taste and preferences.  “Due to these restrictive assumptions, economic base models have a dismal track record when it comes to predicting economic growth in the real world and in the long run,” the Key-Log study said. “The ‘long-run’ is more than a year into the future

The Key-Log study said FTI’s study largely ignored “public and external costs that would attend the construction, operation and presence of the MVP. “This nearly exclusive focus on benefits means, at a minimum, that the jury is still out on whether the MVP is good or bad, at least economical, for the citizens and communities it will affect in Virginia and West Virginia,” the Key-Log study said.

Consideration of the public or external costs of the MVP should be thoroughly covered in the FERC (Federal Energy Regulatory Commission) Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). “To date, MVP LLC offers only vague assurances that the proposed MVP would impose no or only minor costs on agriculture, recreation and other economic activities. It also claims that there would be no impact on property values,” the Key-Log study said.

“In the meantime, other entities, including local governments, citizen groups and businesses would be wise to conduct their own independent assessment of these costs to better ensure that all of the relevant information can be brought to bear on the permitting decision,” the Key-Log study continued.

The Key-Log study said local entities in counties where the MVP is forecast to go should consider:

• Lost eco-system services. Surface and subsurface disturbances, alteration of watercourses, impacts on groundwater, fragmentation of habitat, visual blight, creation of travel corridors for invasive species, lost timber production and other changes are all likely.

• Higher community service costs. Some 90 percent of the workers who build the MVP will be transient, and may increase the need for social services, law enforcement, drug abuse treatment and other services. “All of these add to the local costs, and added tax revenues or other fees paid by energy companies might or might not cover the added bill,” the Key-Log study said.

• Reduced property values. Properties within the earshot, blast radius, leak plume and other physical contact with the pipeline right-of-way and compressor stations will suffer the greatest loss in value, the K-L study said. Even properties farther away become less desirable,the K-L study continued.

• Diminished economic development opportunity. Natural gas development and operations can upset the economic apple cart in these communities by reducing quality of life, the K-L report said. Not only will other economic development opportunities shy away from pipeline areas, but those already in place may not perform as expected, the report said.

“It is impossible to say at this point what the net effect, positive or negative, of the MVP would be,” the K-L study concluded. “We can be certain, however, that more careful estimates of expected benefits would be lower than those presented by MVP LLC via the FTI studies to date. We can also be certain that the costs — that is the negative economic impacts — of the proposed MVP (if constructed) will be higher than zero, which is the level stated or implied by the studies reviewed here.

“Further stronger and more comprehensive research is needed to determine how well more realistic estimates of benefits compare with the likely costs.”

EQT spokesperson Natalie Cox said her company remains confident in the results of the FTI study.

“Opponents of the MVP project have been challenging the results of our economic benefits analysis since its initial release in December 2014; therefore, the findings that are outlined in a critique that was funded by opponents are to be expected,” Cox wrote in an email. She said FTI took a “conservative and reasonable approach” in its study of the MVP.

The process of estimating annual pipeline property (ad valorem) taxes, once in operation, were discussed at length with Virginia and West Virginia state tax officials and thus are in-line with how the states would determine the property taxes owed by MVP, Cox said. For state taxes, the model estimates taxes based on historical state tax revenues and the sources for those revenues, she continued. The state tax analysis reflects taxes generated mainly from one-time construction and commissioning spending.

Cox said the studies in both West Virginia and Virginia were reviewed by economists in both states.

STAR = Gas sources in WV, PA, OH

Another Pipeline Sneaks In – WB Express Pipeline of Columbia Gas Transmission

From S. Tom Bond, Resident Farmer, Lewis County, WV, April 10, 2014

At the April 9 meeting the Upshur County Commission was asked to support still another large bore pipeline. This one is called the WB Express Project, which is being pushed by Columbia Gas Transmission. Subsequent research has shown it would run across the entire state from about the point where Kentucky, Ohio and West Virginia come together to a point near the South most extension of the Eastern panhandle, with zigs and zags.

I have expressed dismay with the unplanned explosive development by the fracking industry, which is an uncoordinated between companies rush to get a limited resource out of the ground, which has shown thoroughly rottin’ results. The only science is how to do it, not on how it will affect the community where it is done, nor the cheapest way between companies. Costs are pushed off on landowners, the local and state governments, and lease contracts are strained far beyond the intentions and perceptions of those who signed it, made a net of words for the single purpose of capturing a fortune for those who cast it.

The new pipeline bonanza seems to be repeating the mistakes of the first line fracking industry, no coordination between companies about transportation of gas, vast capital costs, and no clear idea of how much gas is in the ground to be eventually moved. I have characterized that rush as having the character of a gang of exuberant 13 year olds who weren’t raised properly, and this one seems to be more of the same. The first rush has driven many of the companies to danger of bankruptcy and gas prices below production cost. There is such excess of supply it will be some time before the backlog is worked through and prices can rise to reflect the cost of removal.  It seems the natural gas liquids are carrying the industry, and they will be gone long before the dry gas.

The new pipelines lead to two goals: export and electrical generation with natural gas. Let’s deal with export first. I read a decade after WWII that “the quality hematite iron ore the United States originally had now lays on the bottom of the Pacific Ocean,” that what was left (in considerable abundance), was taconite, a very hard (low grade) stuff. The resource now produces 52 million metric tons, eighth in the world, between South Africa at 67 and Canada at 40. China produces 1320 million metric tons of iron ore.

All of us on earth are similarly situated with many raw materials. The United States is behind Australia, Canada and Japan in tonnage of raw materials used per capita, according to this Bloomberg article, but the other countries export a lot, the first two raw materials, and Japan manufactured products.

We import much finished product, the raw materials for which not shown in this diagram. And the US has a military larger than all the rest put together, certainly no accident. The easy, high quality hydrocarbon energy of the US is gone. Is it wise to export the product of expensive extraction, last dregs of natural gas in the country?

The enthusiasm for using gas for electrical generation is unbounded, as you will find from this 2012 article in Forbes. It quotes a few paragraphs from the National Petroleum Council 2007 paper “Electric Generation Efficiency.” He quotes efficiencies with no recognition of how coal is used, nor the losses of methane from the production and transportation of natural gas. Theoretically, gas generation will produce 57% as much carbon dioxide as coal to generate the same amount of electricity if it is used for heat only. If it is run through a gas turbine and the heat is then used, the theoretical goes to 45% as much carbon dioxide.

However, production of natural gas and transportation results in considerable loss of methane, an even more powerful greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, so the difference in effect is not great. And, of course, no one cares about damage to land and water, or effects, on the people who live there, including sickness.

So how did the Upshur County Commission handle this potentially county transformative technology? It was strictly ho-hum stuff. Agreeing to cooperate with the FERC process took less than a minute. The Chairman read the item of business: “Correspondence from Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC providing explanation on the WB Xpress Project and inviting the Commission to participate in the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s Pre- filing review process.”

And another moved to pass the item, then a vote and it was approved. Just like paying a bill or raising pay of an employee who had reached the statutory time in office for a raise. Nothing from the gas company and nothing from the audience was evident. Not even where it would go in the county!

Shall we pray for Keystone XL or a safe USA?

Senate defeats Keystone XL pipeline

From an Article by Susan Davis, USA Today, November 18

Washington, DC — The U.S. Senate defeated a bill to authorize construction of the Keystone XL oil pipeline, delivering a blow to Sen. Mary Landrieu, D-La., by members of her own party.

“I came here 18 years ago fighting to get here, fighting to stay here,” Landrieu told reporters after the vote, “And I’m going to fight for the people of my state until the day that I leave. I hope that will not be soon.”

The bill failed to overcome a 60-vote threshold for passage by a narrow 59-41 decision. All 45 Republican senators voted for it, but Landrieu could not clinch the necessary last Democratic vote.

Thirteen Democrats voted with Landrieu, including outgoing Sens. Mark Begich of Alaska, Kay Hagan of North Carolina, Mark Pryor of Arkansas, and John Walsh of Montana. Additional Democratic votes came from Michael Bennet of Colorado, Tom Carper of Delaware, Bob Casey of Pennsylvania, Joe Donnelly of Indiana, Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota, Joe Manchin of West Virginia, Claire McCaskill of Missouri, Jon Tester of Montana, and Mark Warner of Virginia.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>

New Analysis Reveals Dangerous Toll of U.S. Pipelines

From an Article by Bill Snape, Center for Biological Diversity, November 17, 2014

Washington, DC – With the U.S. Senate poised to vote on the Keystone XL pipeline on Tuesday, a new analysis of federal records reveals the dangerous toll of pipelines in the United States. In just the past year and four months, there have been 372 oil and gas pipeline leaks, spills and other incidents, leading to 20 deaths, 117 injuries and more than $256 million in damages.

The new data adds to a June 1, 2013 independent analysis of federal records revealing that since 1986, oil and gas pipeline incidents have resulted in 532 deaths, more than 2,400 injuries and more than $7.5 billion in damages.

A new time-lapse video includes every “significant pipeline” incident in the continental United States — along with their human and financial costs — from 1986 to Oct. 1, 2014. On average one significant pipeline incident occurs in the country every 30 hours, according to the data.

“There’s no way to get around the fact that oil and gas pipelines are dangerous and have exacted a devastating toll on people and wildlife. It’s appalling to see Congress seriously considering giving the green light to Keystone XL,” said Bill Snape, senior counsel with the Center for Biological Diversity. “The Obama administration’s own analysis says Keystone XL will spill oil, so it’s really troubling to see politicians wanting to add to this dangerous legacy of failed pipelines.”

The analysis comes as the State Department considers the Keystone XL pipeline — which would transport up to 35 million gallons of tar sands oil a day from Canada to Texas — that federal officials have already estimated could spill up to 100 times during its lifetime.

The analysis released today examines pipeline incidents since 1986, including spills, leaks, ruptures and explosions. It’s based on records from the federal Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, which maintains a database of all U.S. pipeline incidents that are classified as “significant,” those resulting in death or injury, damages more than $50,000, more than 5 barrels of highly volatile substances or 50 barrels of other liquid released, or where the liquid exploded or burned. In total there have been more than 8,700 significant incidents with U.S. pipelines, involving death, injury, and economic and environmental damage, since 1986 — more than 300 per year.

“This analysis ought to be a wakeup call to anyone who thinks it’s smart to double-down on these dangerous pipelines,” said Snape. “Voting for Keystone XL is voting for more spills, more environmental devastation and more climate chaos. It’s as simple as that.”

One difference between Keystone XL and the vast majority of other pipelines that have spilled is that it will be carrying tar sands oil, which has proven very difficult, if not impossible, to clean up. A 2010 spill of tar sands oil in the Kalamazoo River in Michigan, for example, has yet to be cleaned up despite four years of effort. Another tar sands spill in 2013 fouled an entire neighborhood in Arkansas. Federal regulators have acknowledged that Keystone XL, too, will spill.

TransCanada’s existing Keystone I tar sands pipeline has reportedly leaked at least 14 times since it went into operation in June 2010, including one spill of 24,000 gallons. The State Department’s environmental reviews have pointed out that spills from Keystone XL are likely to occur, estimating that there could be as many as about 100 spills over the course of the pipeline’s lifespan. The pipeline will cross 1,700 miles and cross a number of important rivers, including the Yellowstone and Platte, as well as thousands of smaller rivers and streams.

See also:  www.FrackCheckWV.net