|
||||||||
|
||||||||
|
||||||||
Louisiana Environmental Action Network
SpectraBusters: We ain’t afraid a no pipeline: Inadequate insurance and safety plus eminent domain and environmental destruction by Sabal Trail –OSFR
Merrillee Malwitz-Jipson of Our Santa Fe River sent this letter yesterday to the same newspapers Sabal Trail has been in recently. -jsq
Sabal Trail’s spokesperson distributing large quantities of disinformation
“Safety, public input, federal monitoring, jobs, tax revenue, exceed federal safety requirements, reliability, affordable, clean, thorough review, latest proven technologies:” these are all good little meta tags and nice sounding words and phrases used by Andrea Grover, public relations employee for Sabal Trail, in her recent editorial about that company’s proposed natural gas pipeline which was carried by newspapers in the southeastern United States.
But let us point out a few facts that this editorial fails to mention. There were plenty of public input meetings (we attended seven of these, and we read the minutes from others) and the input was overwhelmingly negative. Issues of concern include lack of adequate insurance, poor safety record, forceful takeover of private land, destruction of wildlife and the environment, and danger to springs and rivers. A mere three favorable citizens’ comments were heard.
The product to be transported through the proposed pipeline is the result of hydraulic fracturing or fracking. This extraction technique involves injecting sand and chemicals into underground wells. Three members of Congress, Henry Waxman, Edward Markey, and Diana De Gette contend that millions of gallons water containing hazardous chemicals, 29 of which are known or suspected human carcinogens, were injected into wells from 2005-2009.
These chemicals poison the well water and sloppy extraction techniques may result in the methane leaking from the pipes in the wellbore, which can contaminate the surrounding aquifer. According to recent studies, these leaks increase greenhouse gases (which contributes to global warming) sufficiently to counteract the “clean” qualities of natural gas, thus reducing its desirability over coal as an energy source.
Fracking is now unquestionably tied to earthquakes, as pointed out in recent articles in Science Magazine and the U. S. Geological Survey. From 2000 through 2008 in Oklahoma, there were six earthquakes of magnitude three or higher, but since fracking arrived, there were 850 in just a 15 month period in 2010-2011, and this year, from January to May, the count is 145.
Frequent quakes in Texas, Arkansas, and Ohio, have resulted in the latter two states putting bans on fracking because “They’d rather forego some of the potential economic effects of oil companies in their states to avoid a potential disaster invoking human lives.” (Washington Post article by Dominic Basulto, July 15, 2014)
From 1994 through 2013, the U.S. had 745 serious incidents with gas distribution, causing 278 fatalities and 1059 injuries, with $110,658,083 in property damage. From 1994 through 2013, there were an additional 110 serious incidents with gas transmission, resulting in 41 fatalities, 195 injuries, and $448,900,333 in property damage.
A recent Wall Street Journal review (Jan. 20, 2014) found that there were 1,400 pipeline spills and accidents in the U.S. from 2010-2013. According to the review, four in every five pipeline accidents are discovered by local residents, not the companies that own the pipelines.
Even though Grover stresses safety, her company has a safety record that is worse than terrible. At one point it received the largest fine ever for safety violations. A Valdosta State University study found that Sabal Trail/Spectra has experienced There have been at least 128 pipeline accidents nationwide since 2010. Spectra alone has been responsible for $8,000,000 in property damage (according to the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration), that it has been fined $15,000,000 for spills at 89 pipeline sites, and that it was deemed to have a “poor maintenance and monitoring record.”
Grover brags about the virtues of natural gas, pointing out that it produces 45 percent less carbon dioxide than coal and 30 percent less than fuel oil. She fails to mention that it produces 100 percent more than solar or wind power, and that this is fracked gas, and the havoc it wreaks on our aquifer.
“We do not maintain insurance coverage against all of these risks and losses, and any insurance coverage we might maintain may not fully cover the damages caused by those risks and losses.”
—Spectra Energy 2013 Form 10-KWhat else does she fail to mention? Well, that in the scoping meetings it came out that Sabal Trail does not have adequate insurance and will not be responsible for fighting fires, clearing wreckage, hauling bodies to hospitals, etc. when their pipe blows up; instead, the local, under-equipped-for-huge-mega disasters emergency units like we have in Bell and Branford will have to do it.
And that the gas will most likely be exported to foreign countries, even though unwilling landowners will have their land taken away under the guise of eminent domain; that the “open access” pipeline has the blessing (and permits) of federal agencies to sell the gas to other companies for export after it reaches its terminal in south Florida.
Our Santa Fe River, Inc., not for profit 501c3, of which Merrillee Malwitz-Jipson is president, and Jim Tatum Ph.D. is a member, has been opposing the proposed Sabal Trail Transmission gas pipeline from Alabama through Georgia to Florida.
Short Link:
Alabama, Climate Change, Economy, Environment, Ethics, Explosion, FERC, Florida, Fracking, Georgia, Gilchrist County, Hazards, History, Law, Leak, LNG, Noise, PHMSA, Safety, Suwannee County, WaterAlabama, Andrea Grover, eminent domain, environment, Ethics, explosion, export, FERC, Florida, Fracking, Georgia, Gilchrist County, Hazards, insurance, leak, LNG, Merrillee Malwitz-Jipson, OSFR, Our Santa Fe River, PHMSA, Sabal Trail Transmission, Safety, Spectra Energy, Suwannee County, transparency, WaterJohn S. Quarterman
Special thanks to Anita Stewart
Times-Picayune: Should the government open more offshore areas to oil and gas drilling? VOTE NOW
vote now at:
Nola.com
This June 2011 file photo shows a drilling rig known as the Maersk Developer in the Gulf of Mexico about 250 miles off the coast of Louisiana in about 7,000 feet of water. (Photo provided by Exxon Mobil Corp.)
Print
This June 2011 file photo shows a drilling rig known as the Maersk Developer in the Gulf of Mexico about 250 miles off the coast of Louisiana in about 7,000 feet of water. (Photo provided by Exxon Mobil Corp.)
By Jennifer Larino, NOLA.com | The Times-Picayune
Email the author | Follow on Twitter
Email the author | Follow on Twitter
on July 23, 2014 at 12:10 PM, updated July 23, 2014 at 12:12 PM
More than two-thirds of American voters support increased oil and natural gas drilling offshore, though many think the federal government is not doing enough to encourage activity, according to an American Petroleum Institute poll released Wednesday (July 23).
Do you support increased oil and gas production in federal waters offshore? Take the reader survey below and share your opinion in the comments.
The API poll found 68 percent of registered voters surveyed support offshore drilling. That included about 80 percent of Republican voters, 72 percent of Independent voters and 61 percent of Democrat voters.
About one quarter of respondents said they think the U.S. government does enough to encourage oil and gas development on federal lands and waters.
The telephone poll, conducted by Harris Poll between July 10 and 13, surveyed 1,012 registered voters nationwide. It has a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.
Should the federal government open more offshore areas to oil and gas drilling?
Yes.
No.
I’m not sure. I’ll explain why in the comment section.
Vote
View Results
It comes as the Obama administration drafts its latest five-year plan for selling oil and gas leases offshore. The plan will take effect starting in 2017.
Last Friday (July 18) the administration said it would allow the energy industry to search for oil and gas under Atlantic waters using seismic testing, potentially paving the way for drilling in the area.
Environmentalists argue the testing, which uses air guns and noisy sonic blasts, is harmful to marine life.
In a conference call with reporters, Erik Milito, director of upstream and industry operations for API, said the poll results show the government needs to open development in the Atlantic as well as parts of the Pacific and eastern Gulf of Mexico currently off limits to oil and gas companies.
“Clearly voters do not think energy should be a partisan issue,” Milito said.
What do you think?
Special thanks to Richard Charter
Progress Florida: Act Now to Stop Fracking in Florida
Direct link: https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/#inbox/14768b40840bc228
Florida is under threat from the risky new oil and gas extraction process known as acid fracking. Fracking would put Florida’s fragile water supply and the health of our citizens at risk. The good news is that we’re making progress toward stopping this dangerous practice, and that’s why we need your help to keep up the momentum.
Gov. Rick Scott’s Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) hid Hughes Co.’s illegal fracking in the Everglades from the public for months, and to this day has failed to disclose exactly what happened, citing industry “trade secrets”. And the Florida DEP’s initial punishment amounted to only a $25,000 slap on the wrist fine.
Despite the Scott administration’s weak response to illegal fracking, public outcry has turned the tide. Last week, the DEP, after increased pressure from concerned Floridians and conservation groups, finally revoked all of the Hughes Co.’s drilling permits. And although Hughes may still face further action from the DEP, some lawmakers have begun pushing for tougher regulations on the oil and gas industry, including a statewide ban on fracking.
The Hughes Co.’s pullout of the Everglades amounts to only a partial victory for Floridians. The threat fracking poses to Florida’s future remains, especially while Gov. Rick Scott is in office. Given its location in the heart of the Everglades and endangered Panther country, as well as the potential to contaminate South Florida’s drinking water supply, Hughes’ permit should never have been approved.
The only sensible way to protect Florida from the dangers of oil and gas fracking is to ban the practice, period. Please take a moment and sign the petition right now so we can stop fracking in Florida.
For a frack-free future,
Mark and the Progress Florida team
P.S. Big kudos to all the organizations leading the way on this fight, including Preserve Our Paradise, Stonecrab Alliance and the Conservancy of Southwest Florida!
Huffington Post: New Offshore Oil Plan Could Be ‘Game Over’ for Climate
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/
Richard Steiner
Professor and conservation biologist (www.oasis-earth.com)
Posted: 07/17/2014 12:14 pm EDT Updated: 07/17/2014 12:59 pm EDT
In a move that could rival the climate impacts of the Alberta tar sands and Keystone XL pipeline, and would release far more atmospheric carbon than that saved by the new EPA power plant and vehicle rules, the Obama administration just initiated its 2017-2022 process to expand oil and gas drilling on the nation’s outer continental shelf (OCS) – including the Arctic, Pacific, Atlantic, and Gulf of Mexico. The initial public comment period on the plan closes July 31, 2014.
Despite the fact that many of the 2011 National Oil Spill Commission’s recommendations to improve offshore drilling safety have yet to be implemented, and the certainty of more oil spills, this new leasing program would commit the nation to another 40 years of carbon-intensive energy that world climate cannot afford.
In addition to the proven offshore reserves already in production (currently providing 18% of domestic oil and 5% of domestic gas production), the government estimates that the U.S. OCS contains an additional 90 billion barrels of oil and 400 trillion cubic feet of natural gas yet to be discovered. Industry thinks there is more. History shows that once oil is discovered, it will be produced.
Burning this much oil and gas would release over 60 billion tons of CO2 to the atmosphere – a ‘carbon bomb’ almost as large as the entire Alberta tars sands. Just as with the tar sands (with 168 billion barrels of proven reserves), producing this U.S. offshore oil could be ‘game over’ for efforts to contain climate change. And this offshore carbon would dwarf the one or two billion tons of CO2 saved by the new power plant and vehicle rules by 2030.
Without doubt, the combined carbon from offshore oil (in the U.S. and other nations), and tar sands oil, would be disastrous for climate. But industry sees billions of dollars lying in the seabed, and seems to care little about climate impacts.
If we want to stabilize climate and secure a sustainable future, the carbon now safely buried beneath the seabed, just as in the tar sands, should be left right where it is – buried. In fact, a landmark 2013 study by the Carbon Tracker Initiative in the U.K. concluded that, in order to avoid climate warming exceeding the critical target of 2 degrees Celsius, two-thirds of world’s remaining hydrocarbon reserves must be left in the ground. That study, co-authored with the London School of Economics, warns that in the coming decade, $6 trillion could be wasted in finding and developing ‘unburnable carbon.’
To commit to another four decades of carbon-intensive energy production as envisioned by the new OCS plan – Obama’s “all-of-the-above” (“business-as-usual”) energy policy – would dangerously delay our switch to sustainable, low-carbon energy, and virtually guarantee future climate chaos. Given the scientific consensus for the urgent need to reduce carbon emissions, this new OCS plan is irresponsible and reckless. More offshore drilling is not a solution to our energy-climate crisis, but would only deepen and prolong the crisis, likely until it is too late. It is time to say “no” to this self-destructive energy path, and get busy building the future sustainable energy economy.
Some lawmakers are already expressing opposition to the drilling plan. In a July 2, 2014 letter to the President, Senators Bob Menendez, Cory Booker, and Congressman Frank Pallone (Ds-NJ) wrote that they “strongly oppose any efforts to expand offshore oil and gas drilling, particularly any such efforts that would threaten New Jersey’s vibrant coastal communities…We owe it to future generations to ensure that our pristine natural resources are preserved and protected from the polluting fossil fuel industry.” The same is true for all of our nation’s waters.
In the Arctic, large-scale offshore drilling would forever change the seascape and ecosystem. The Arctic Ocean is a spectacular, unique, and fragile marine ecosystem, home to polar bears, walrus, whales, ice-seals, and ancient human cultures. Already suffering extreme effects of climate change, drilling in the Arctic Ocean would make matters worse by adding significant industrial disturbance, including platforms, pipelines, tankers, ports, ship and air traffic, underwater noise, suspended sediment, and of course oil spills with no hope of cleanup. The area’s remoteness, severe weather and icy seas make drilling here a high-risk, unacceptable gamble.
Just ask Shell Oil. In perhaps the most intensely scrutinized offshore drilling project in history, Shell’s calamitous 2012 Arctic drilling effort off Alaska displayed arrogance, incompetence, and a reckless disregard for the risks involved.
One of Shell’s Arctic drilling rigs, the Kulluk, being towed across the stormy Gulf of Alaska in late December (to avoid paying first-of-the-year taxes), broke its tow and grounded off of Kodiak Island. It’s other drill ship, the Noble Discoverer, had to emergency-disconnect from drilling to avoid the approach of a large ice floe, had a stack fire, broke down and had to be towed into port, was detained by the Coast Guard, and was issued several notices of violation and serious deficiencies. Shell’s oil spill containment dome “crushed like a beer can” when it was first tested. Both of Shell’s Arctic drill rigs were seriously damaged, and the company had to cancel its 2013 and 2014 Arctic drilling plans. Industry observers opined that Shell may have “bitten off more than it could chew.”
If we genuinely care about our coastal and marine areas, we should not expose them to the risk of oil drilling. Spills will occur; they can’t be cleaned up; they can cause long-term, even permanent, damage; and restoration is impossible. Where we do produce and transport oil, it must be done with the highest possible safety standards. We need to use oil much more efficiently, and stop wasting it.
But beyond this, the global climate simply cannot afford the carbon that would be produced offshore. Instead, we need to kick our hydrocarbon habit, and get on with the hard work of building a sustainable energy economy.
If President Obama wants to make good on his campaign pledge to ‘slow the rise in the oceans,’ and to ‘heal the planet,’ he needs to abandon this plan for new offshore drilling (at very least, permanently withdraw the Arctic), and begin to phase-out existing offshore oil production. A tall order, perhaps, but essential in order to incentivize the transition to a sustainable energy future. And with such bold U.S. leadership, other nations would be encouraged to follow.
Sheikh Zaki Yamani, former Saudi Arabian oil minister, once said: “The stone age did not end for lack of stones, and the oil age will end long before the world runs out of oil.” Our ancestors invented a smarter way to live. Now it’s our turn.
Special thanks to Richard Charter