Concerned & disturbed residents are ignored or worse

From the Blog of Michael M. Barrick, Appalachian Chronicle, August 14, 2018

It is Duke, Dominion and EQT that are terrorizing people

Photo: Myra Bonhage-Hale, then of Alum Bridge, W.Va. holds signs with questions she had for Consol about pipelines. This “activist” eventually moved out of state.

RALEIGH, N.C. – The North Carolina’s surveillance and counter-terrorism unit has conducted a “threat assessment” of opponents to the Atlantic Coast Pipeline (ACP), which is scheduled to be built in eastern North Carolina, according to North Carolina Policy Watch: “State Bureau of Investigation unit prepared “threat assessment” of Atlantic Coast Pipeline protestors.”

According to the article, “The state’s surveillance and counter-terrorism unit, the Information Sharing and Analysis Center (ISAAC), warned law enforcement officials that the Atlantic Coast Pipeline could attract “violent extremists” who are opposed to the natural gas project in North Carolina … .” If approved, the Atlantic Coast Pipeline will run more than 170 miles through North Carolina roughly parallel with I-95 east of Raleigh.

The law enforcement analysis could not be more misguided.

Photo: Joao Barroso makes a point with neighbors in Randolph County, W.Va. He became an “activist” to protect hundreds of acres of his pristine land.

There are terrorists involved in fracking and related pipeline development – if that’s the word the law enforcement wishes to use – but they are not the opponents to the pipeline; rather the ones terrorizing people and the environment are the corporations building the pipelines. These include Duke Energy of Charlotte, Dominion Resources of Richmond, and EQT of Pittsburgh. The latter company is the primary developer of the Mountain Valley Pipeline (MVP), another controversial pipeline being built through West Virginia and Virginia.

The ISAAC would be well served to listen to this excellent interview of Ellen M. Gilmer, a legal reporter with E&E News by West Virginia Public Radio. Gilmer offers an analysis of the court battles involving both pipelines. One listening to it will see that pipeline opponents don’t have to resort to “terrorism.” Why? They are enjoying many victories in state and federal courts. Victories, in fact, that for now have shut construction of the pipelines down.

Opponents are not wide-eyed radicals and Gilmer knows it. How do I know? In 2015, I gave her a tour of the area in northern West Virginia where both pipelines originate. While living and reporting from there, I was covering construction of the Stonewall Gas Gathering line, a 36” diameter, 55-mile pipeline. Because it did not cross state boundaries, it did not need federal approval. Nevertheless, the pipeline’s builders were terrorizing people along the entire route.

Photo: Justin McClain (L) listens as his father, Robert talks about the damage to their crops done by the Stonewall Gas Gathering Pipeline

As I took Ms. Gilmer around, I introduced her to the people most impacted by that project and introduced her to others whose land is threatened by the ACP and/or MVP. You’d have to ask her yourself, but I’m pretty sure she didn’t meet anyone that could be construed as a terrorist.

But, this is what she did see (or hear about because of time constraints):

>>> A farmer in Doddridge County whose crops were destroyed because of improper erosion controls upstream during pipeline construction
>>> Sick people throughout Doddridge County
>>> The local newspaper is owned, literally, by gas and oil company owners
>>> Citizens injured and killed by industry trucks
>>> Residents leaving the state

These are just but a few examples. There are several more links at the end of this article. However, one moment stands out for me. It was at an event where the fossil fuel industry and law enforcement teamed up to intimidate local citizens simply curious about the pipelines as they were first announced. It was then that I knew the fix was in. The corporations got to the legislators, who then pressured law enforcement. Now it’s happening in North Carolina. It is beyond unnecessary – it is chilling.

What is fracking?

Fracking is a slang word for hydraulic fracturing, the process of injecting a fluid consisting of water, sand and chemicals at high pressure into shale. This fractures the rock, releasing natural gas, which is then extracted. In West Virginia, Ohio and Pennsylvania the Marcellus shale, a layer of rock 3,500 – 8,000 feet below the surface, is the object of fracking. The vertical depth of the formation is about 150 feet. Whether recovered or left behind, the frack fluid presents problems. The wastewater contains not only the chemicals added to the water, but also leaving minerals and radioactive materials recovered as part of the extraction process.

Failed erosion control

Failed erosion control on construction of Stonewall Gas Gathering pipeline in West Virginia Photo by Autumn Bryson

Large diameter, high pressure, long distance pipeline construction

Fracking and pipeline construction are inexorably linked. Without fracking, there is no need for a pipeline. Without fracking, there is no need for a pipeline. With fracking, all the risks associated with pipeline construction serve only to aggravate the impact of the process. Presently, four companies seek to construct two 42” pipelines from North Central West Virginia to carry the gas extracted from the Marcellus Shale. The longest, the 600-mile Atlantic Coast Pipeline (ACP) would terminate in Robeson County, N.C.

The companies seeking approval to build the ACP have harassed land owners wishing to protect their land from the devastation that would be caused by the ACP construction, not to mention the potential danger it poses for those living alongside of it. Having learned of what the people along the proposed ACP route have endured in West Virginia and Virginia, it is clear that the people of North Carolina need political leaders who will defend them, not consider them threats.

Fracking impacts and risks (Or ‘A Dirty Dozen Reasons to Oppose Fracking’)

Dead and injured workers (here and here), explosions on fracking pads (here), dead and injured motorists (here and here), destroyed wells and streams (here), dead livestock (here) and sickened residents (here) are just some of the public health and safety risks associated with fracking. Indeed, the list is rather long. The negative by-products of fracking include:

Public Health Issues, Water Use and Contamination, Radioactivity, Air Pollution, Waste Disposal, Site Development and Well Pad Activity, Misuse of Eminent Domain, Climate Change, Traffic Congestion, Potential Earthquakes, Industry Instability

The people experiencing these events and tactics do not sound like terrorists. They sound like people who are being terrorized.

See also the Appalachian Chronicle by Michael Barrick.

Environmental Justice Concerns and the Proposed Atlantic Coast Pipeline Route in North Carolina

Research Triangle Institute, Report ISSN 2378-7813, March 2018

Authors: Sarah Wraight, Julia Hofmann, Justine Allpress, and Brooks Depro

ABSTRACT— This report describes publicly available data sets and quantitative analysis that local communities can use to evaluate environmental justice concerns associated with pipeline projects. We applied these data and analytical methods to two counties in North Carolina (Northampton and Robeson counties) that would be affected by the proposed Atlantic Coast Pipeline (ACP). We compared demographic and vulnerability characteristics of census blocks, census block groups, and census tracts that lie within 1 mile of the proposed pipeline route with corresponding census geographies that lie outside of the 1-mile zone. Finally, we present results of a county-level analysis of race and ethnicity data for the entire North Carolina segment of the proposed ACP route. Statistical analyses of race and ethnicity data (US Census Bureau) and Social Vulnerability Index scores (University of South Carolina’s Hazards & Vulnerability Research Institute) yielded evidence of significant differences between the areas crossed by the pipeline and reference geographies. No significant differences were found in our analyses of household income and cancer risk data.

INTRODUCTION — The Atlantic Coast Pipeline, LLC, (ACP) is a new underground natural gas transmission pipeline project that is proposed to run approximately 600 miles through West Virginia, Virginia, and North Carolina (Atlantic Coast Pipeline to build $5 billion natural gas system, 2015). In August 2016, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) established an environmental review timeline that included the delivery of draft and final environmental impact statements (EISs) required by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). One of the purposes of EISs is to provide a “full and fair discussion of significant environmental impacts and … inform decision makers and the public of the reasonable alternatives which would avoid or minimize adverse impacts or enhance the quality of the human environment” (40 C.F.R. § 1502.1, 1978). The draft EIS was prepared by FERC and released in late December 2016, marking the start of a 90-day public comment period. The final EIS was published in July 2017.

DISCUSSION — The draft EIS claims that because “impacts would occur along the entire pipeline route and in areas with a variety of socioeconomic backgrounds,” there is consequently “no evidence that [the pipeline] would cause a disproportionate share of high and adverse environmental or socioeconomic impacts on any racial, ethnic, or socioeconomic group” (FERC, 2016, p. 4:413). FERC does not explain the factual basis for this conclusion; the criteria for establishing “disproportionate impact” on populations are not stated in the document.

Our test results suggest that in Northampton County disproportionately large numbers of American Indian residents and African American residents live within 1 mile of the pipeline route, whereas in Robeson County, disproportionately large numbers of American Indian residents and Hispanic/Latino residents live within 1 mile of the pipeline route. Our county-level demographic analysis points to broader-scale spatial inequities. If pipeline risks are indeed uniform along the entire route, as FERC (2016) argues in its environmental justice analysis, then our analysis provides evidence of disproportionate exposure of certain groups to pipeline impacts. In Robeson County, the census tracts within 1 mile of the pipeline route also have a significantly higher mean SoVI score relative to census tracts outside of 1 mile of the pipeline route.

FUTURE RESEARCH — Community advocates who reviewed the preliminary findings of this study suggested the need for a larger-scale analysis. The analysis would compare the current proposed route with older proposed and rejected routes to illustrate how environmental justice concerns varied with the changes in the proposed routes.

Although our research team incorporated additional social and environmental variables, the analysis could be strengthened by investigating the spatial distributions of other preexisting stressors, especially health concerns (e.g., heart disease, cancers related to nonrespiratory exposure pathways, diabetes) and environmental conditions (e.g., for floodplains, landfills, brown fields, water quality impairments, coal ash facilities, and waste deposits). Such analysis would ideally form part of a quantitative and qualitative evaluation of cumulative impacts and aggregate environmental risks to vulnerable communities, including those that are physically distant from the proposed route but have strong sociocultural connections to the area.

REFERENCE — Wraight, S., Hofmann, J., Allpress, J., and Depro, B. (2018). Environmental Justice Concerns and the Proposed Atlantic Coast Pipeline Route in North Carolina. RTI Press Publication No. MR-0037-1803. Research Triangle Park, NC: RTI Press. https://doi.org/10.3768/ rtipress.2018.mr.0037.1803

LINK — https://www.rti.org/sites/default/files/resources/rti-publication-file-ebb83111-c510-4414-8212-7f6026e93009.pdf