The Public Accountability Initiative Considers the ACP, June 2017

Atlantic Coast Pipeline, LLC is proposing the approximately 600-mile unidirectional, open access Atlantic Coast Pipeline (ACP) to transport Marcellus-Utica shale gas from West Virginia, through Virginia, and ending in North Carolina. Four energy corporations – Dominion Energy, Duke Energy, Piedmont Natural Gas Company, and Southern Company Gas – are behind the proposed pipeline, though Dominion is the driving force. Construction is scheduled to begin in the fall of 2017, pending regulatory approval from FERC and state agencies.

The ACP has raised intense opposition from environmentalists and communities that stand to be impacted by it. Its proposed route will run through environmentally fragile land, threaten land values and nearby residents, and potentially involve mountain ridgeline reduction. Opponents claim abuse of eminent domain laws for private gain and argue that the ACP is not needed to meet regional energy demands, but is rather an attempt to raise profits to please shareholders.

This report maps out some of the powerful interests behind the ACP.

Key findings include:

>>> Vast corporate power behind the pipeline. Dominion Energy, the biggest stakeholder in the ACP, is a huge economic and political powerhouse in Virginia and beyond. The company and its powerful CEO have used their deep pockets and political ties to advance their interests generally and around the pipeline.

>>> An army of revolving door lobbyists. Dominion and its surrogates have deployed a band of private lobbyists who have backgrounds in government – including a former EPA official from the Obama administration.

>>> Pro-pipeline politicians cash in. State politicians in Virginia and North Carolina who have been publicly vocal about their support for the pipeline have been some of the biggest recipients of donations from its corporate backers.

>>> Conflicts of interests at regulatory agencies. Key members of regulatory boards tasked with approving the pipeline in Virginia have backgrounds that raise conflict of interest concerns. For example, the Virginia DEQ’s Water Permitting Division Director was once a lawyer for Dominion, according to minutes from a county board meeting.

>>> Banks invested in the pipeline. Nearly three dozen banks have credit agreements for almost $15 billion in total to Dominion and Duke. Many of these banks are also funding the controversial Dakota Access Pipeline

I. Atlantic Coast Pipeline

The Atlantic Coast Pipeline is being proposed by a consortium of four energy companies: Dominion Energy, Duke Energy, Piedmont Natural Gas, and Southern Company Gas. In September 2014, the companies announced the creation of Atlantic Coast Pipeline, LLC to oversee the pipeline’s construction and operation. Dominion owns a 48% stake in the pipeline, and Duke, after acquiring Piedmont Natural Gas in a merger, owns a 47% stake.

According to Dominion’s website, the unidirectional pipeline will be nearly 600 miles long, with three compressor stations built along its path – one at the beginning of the pipeline, in Lewis County, West Virginia; another in Buckingham County, in central Virginia; and the last in Northampton County, North Carolina, close to the Virginia-North Carolina border. It will contain two lateral pipelines that feed into Dominion Virginia electric plants in Brunswick and Greensville Counties, as well as a third connected pipeline to transport gas to Hampton Roads.

The total cost of the pipeline is estimated to be from $5 to $5.5 billion. Dominion predicts that it will be able to transport 1.5 billion cubic feet of fracked gas per day to Dominion and Duke customers. Dominion claims on its website: “The pipeline would provide a dependable supply of natural gas for electric utilities in the region looking to use natural gas as a cleaner option to generate electricity. It also would help local gas utilities serve their customers with a new, reliable source of supply, and permit businesses to build or expand their operations.”

The ACP has the strong support of the Trump administration. It ranks 20th on the list of Trump’s top 50 infrastructure priorities, and several Trump associates stand to profit directly from the pipeline.

In order to proceed, the ACP must gain approval by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) as well as a range of other federal bodies and state regulatory entities in West Virginia, Virginia, and North Carolina. If approved, pipeline construction could begin as soon as late 2017. On December 30th, 2016, FERC issued what pipeline opponents consider to be a lax and industry-friendly Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS). In a 14-page motion, Friends of Nelson, Wild Virginia, and Heartwood all call on FERC to “rescind or revise” the DEIS. With the comment period now closed, FERC is expected to release its final Environmental Impact report on July 21st, 2017.

Opponents of the pipeline stretch across the political spectrum to include a range of environmental groups, landowners, conservationists, military veterans, and other concerned community members. Virginia Democratic gubernatorial candidate Tom Perriello has come out in opposition to the pipeline, declaring that he would block it if elected. Opposition groups like Wild Virginia, Friends of Nelson County, Alleghany-Blue Ridge Alliance, Chesapeake Climate Action Network, and the Virginia Sierra Club have pointed out a range of threats the ACP poses.

These include: endangerment of rare species and fragile habitats, water pollution, degradation of rural scenery, miles of ridgeline reduction (which some call a form of mountaintop removal), and noise and toxic chemicals emitted by compressors. Indeed, a recent study by Purdue University and Environmental Defense Fund researchers highlights the danger of methane leaks in natural gas pipelines as well as high levels of methane emissions in natural gas power plants, which are much higher than previously thought.

Many also oppose the pipeline because of Dominion’s concerted efforts to gain access to private land via eminent domain to survey it for pipeline construction. This opposition includes political conservatives as well as an 83-year-old widowwho has gone to the Virginia Supreme Court to prevent Dominion from encroaching on the land her family has owned since 1880.

Aside from highlighting its potentially disastrous environmental effects, many feel the pipeline represents an unnecessary grab for bigger corporate profits. As one journalist wrote: “Pipeline opponents also question whether the pipeline is needed at all, charging that building the pipeline itself might deliver the profits that energy companies desire — through rate hikes — whether there is consumer demand or not.”

See also: “Public Accountability Initiative on ACP”

See the Note in the Article.

Unconventional Oil & Gas Wastewaters Affect WV Surface-Water Stream

From the US Geological Survey, Reston, VA, May 9, 2016

These are the first published studies to demonstrate water-quality impacts to a surface stream due to activities at an unconventional oil and gas wastewater deep well injection disposal site.

Evidence indicating the presence of wastewaters from unconventional oil and gas production was found in surface waters and sediments near an underground injection well near Fayetteville, West Virginia, according to two recent studies by the U.S. Geological Survey, University of Missouri, and Duke University.

These are the first published studies to demonstrate water-quality impacts to a surface stream due to activities at an unconventional oil and gas wastewater deep well injection disposal site. The studies did not assess how the wastewaters were able to migrate from the disposal site to the surface stream. The unconventional oil and gas wastewater that was injected in the site came from coalbed methane and shale gas wells.

“Deep well injection is widely used by industry for the disposal of wastewaters produced during unconventional oil and gas extraction,” said USGS scientist Denise Akob, lead author on the current study. “Our results demonstrate that activities at disposal facilities can potentially impact the quality of adjacent surface waters.”

The scientists collected water and sediment samples upstream and downstream from the disposal site. These samples were analyzed for a series of chemical markers that are known to be associated with unconventional oil and gas wastewater. In addition, in a just-published collaborative study tests known as bioassays were done to determine the potential for the impacted surface waters to cause endocrine disruption.

Waters and sediments collected downstream from the disposal facility were elevated in constituents that are known markers of UOG wastewater, including sodium, chloride, strontium, lithium and radium, providing indications of wastewater-associated impacts in the stream.

“We found endocrine disrupting activity in surface water at levels that previous studies have shown are high enough to block some hormone receptors and potentially lead to adverse health effects in aquatic organisms,” said Susan C. Nagel, director of the EDC study and associate professor of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Women’s Health at University of Missouri.

Scientists analyzed the microbial communities in sediments downstream. These microbes play an important role in ecosystems’ food webs.

“These initial findings will help us design further research at this and similar sites to determine whether changes in microbial communities and water quality may adversely impact biota and important ecological processes,” said Akob.

Production of unconventional oil and gas resources yields large volumes of wastewater, which are commonly disposed of using underground injection. In fact, more than 36,000 of these disposal wells are currently in operation across the United States, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and the volume of unconventional oil and gas wastewater requiring disposal has continued to grow despite a slowing in drilling and production.

“Considering how many wastewater disposal wells are in operation across the country, it’s critical to know what impacts they may have on the surrounding environment,” said Duke University scientist Christopher Kassotis, the lead author on one of the studies. “These studies are an important first step in that process.”

Endocrine disruptors are chemicals that interfere with normal functioning of organisms’ hormones.

The studies were published in Environmental Science and Technology and Science of the Total Environment and can be found here. They are titled:

• “Wastewater Disposal from Unconventional Oil and Gas Development Degrades Stream Quality at a West Virginia Injection Facility,” with Akob as the lead author
• “Endocrine Disrupting Activities of Surface Water Associated with a West Virginia Oil and Gas Industry Wastewater Disposal Site,” with Kassotis as the lead author

This study is part of USGS research into the possible risks to water quality and environmental health posed by waste materials from unconventional oil and gas development. The USGS Toxic Substances Hydrology Program and the USGS Environmental Health Mission Area provide objective scientific information on environmental contamination to improve characterization and management of contaminated sites, to protect human and environmental health, and to reduce potential future contamination problems.

NOTE: Map of sampling locations near Fayetteville, WV within the Wolf Creek watershed (A) and specific sites (B) in a stream running adjacent to a class II disposal facility. Panel A shows that Site 2 was located in a separate drainage from the disposal facility sites (outlined in black box), which are shown in panel B (Sites 4, 5, 6, 7 and 3). In panel B, the blue line highlights the stream and the yellow outline is the location of the former impoundment ponds.

See also:  www.FrackCheckWV.net