There are many arguments against the Rover (and Nexus) pipelines

I am sharing an excellent essay by Frank Zaski, Energy Activist:

This was written with Rover in mind, but much of it applies to Nexus as well. Let me know what I missed. thanks.

There are many arguments against Rover (and Nexus)

Prospects of transporting gas thru Dawn to Eastern Canada and Eastern US have been diminished by the many pipelines already serving these locations from eastern Marcellus thru Niagara and along the US east coast. 

The prospects of large, long term LNG exports have been greatly diminished by; Australia doubling their LNG export capacity, plans for a NG pipeline from Iran to Europe, discovery of gas off Egypt, worldwide trend towards using more renewable energy and energy efficiency, plus, 195 nations pledged at COP21 to cut CO2 and methane emissions.

Most US LNG export plans are being questioned by the financial community.  

In spite of the strong economic and automotive rebound, electric sales in Michigan have declined in most years since 2005 and continue to decline thru the first 3 quarters of 2015. (EIA) The 9 coal plans being closed in Michigan are small and have been greatly underutilized.

Uutilities in Michigan forecast flat or declining demand for gas for heating.

Prospects of transporting gas to Chicago thru Vector have been diminished by the reversal of the REX pipeline. Now even plans for another pipeline to ship gas from REX to Chicago are in doubt. 

Prospects of transporting gas to the Gulf have been diminished by the many pipeline reversal that already transport gas to that region directly from Marcellus and Utica.

A review of SNL pipeline statistics suggests Michigan and Midwest pipelines are being underutilized, even in January.

Rover and Nexus are redundant. They start at the same place, essentially parallel each other and then end at the same place.

There are many comments of overbuild of natural gas pipelines in the US. Irrational exuberance took over the industry a few years ago. What was considered a bold move is now being described as financial recklessness.

Rover is a producer driven pipeline and many Rover’s producer/shippers are in deep financial trouble. In response to their unsustainable debt, declining creditworthiness and limited access to capital, financial institutions are putting away considerable reserves to cover anticipated defaults on loans. There are predictions that a third of shale gas drillers will go bankrupt. (And, what will this do to Rover’s firm commitments?) 

Gas pipeline companies are also being impacted by this and low gas price and production cutbacks. Kinder Morgan had to drastically cut their dividend and capital expenditures. Williams’s bonds have been downgraded to junk status. Even Energy Transfer Equity, the parent of Rover owner Energy Transfer Partners, is considered financially risky with unsustainable debt according to an analyst. http://valuentumbrian.tumblr.com/post/134937468895/alert-energy-transfer-equity-is-more-than-7x

Given the above, Rover is not needed and would not serve the public interest. Rover is an imprudent investment and optional pipeline for ETP.