Another Wave of Mass Postings to FERC Through Unions in WV, OH and PA

On December 5th, I reported about the abuse of the FERC e-filing system by people filing from WV. It turns out that the local unions in these economically depressed regions handed out sheets and asked the meeting attendees to write down what positive effects they anticipate (or rather hope and pray for) of the pipeline for their local economies. What is wrong with this? Several things, first of all wishful thinking is not reality - it is highly immoral of unions to misinform their members about the real number of jobs created and the real benefits for the local economy. Second, all of the arguments are purely economical arguments and have nothing to do with the environmental impact of the pipeline - which is the only concern of FERC in this process. Finally, as the pipeline will not run through West-Virginia, residents of WV should not have a say about it at all. In addition, flooding the system with these generic "prayer-sheets" is annoying for everybody, who subscribed the ET Rover process and waters down the legitimate input of farmers and residents, as well as townships and counties objecting the pipeline due to its environmental impact! I finally had to unsubscribe as the same union repeated its bad practice this evening again. Latest news - now also unions from Ohio started these mass postings. I attach a few examples with names and addresses removed below. There are literally hundreds of such postings there now - NONE say anything about the environment!

Sad News: Theo Colborn passed away, 1927-2014

One of my modern day heroes, who was both an outstanding scientist and a tireless activist passed away yesterday. Read a short obituary here - with links to more info on "The Rachel Carson of the 80s and 90s", and her fight against endocrine disruptors, chemicals used in oil and gas drilling, and pesticides.

http://endocrinedisruption.org/enews/2014/12/11/theo-colborn-1927-2014/

Complaint addressed to FERC about Generic Mass Comments submitted to FERC PF14-14-000

To whom it may concern,
I am just wondering what the flood of scanned comments of supporters of the project from WV has to do with FERC's approval process.
The pipeline does not travel through WV - therefore these people should not have a say on its approval.
In addition, all of these comments are written very carelessly and are very brief - 3 lines at the most - not even full sentences.
None of the comments mentions a single environmental aspect - it is all is about the supposed benefits for the economy.
I thought this process is about the environmental impact of the project - not about the promised and highly disputable impact on local economies!
It seems to me that somebody thinks if they gather 100 of these generic support letters they can counter objective scientific analyses of the environmental impact of the project, like the one I submitted, which cites 36 recent scientific research publications - or statements from entire townships in Ohio and Michigan opposing the pipeline.
If that is correct, the FERC process is a big farce and serves nothing else than pretending that the environmental impact of the project is seriously investigated!
A copy of this comment is published on my blog: adrianoil.blogspot.com
---------------------------------------
Thomas Wassmer, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor of Biology
Siena Heights University

________________________________________
From: 'FERC eSubscription' [eSubscription@ferc.gov]
Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2014 7:25 PM
Subject: Comment on Filing submitted in FERC PF14-14-000 by INDIVIDUAL
On 12/4/2014, the following Filing was submitted to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), Washington D.C.:

Filer: INDIVIDUAL
Docket(s): PF14-14-000
Lead Applicant: Rover Pipeline LLC
Filing Type: Comment on Filing
Description: Comments of Christopher D. Strait re the ET Rover Pipeline under PF14-14.
To view the document for this Filing, click here
http://elibrary.FERC.gov/idmws/file_list.asp?accession_num=20141204-0028

To modify your subscriptions, click here: https://ferconline.ferc.gov/eSubscription.aspx
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please do not respond to this email.
Online help is available here:
http://www.ferc.gov/efiling-help.asp
or for phone support, call 866-208-3676.

FERC: No reason to approve Rover

A few talking points for FERC scoping meetings.

This email is in response to comments made by the Michigan Chamber of Commerce, Rover, unions, and others at the FERC Rover scoping meeting in Chelsea (November 20). Comments such as:
· about 3,000 temporary jobs would be created in Michigan
· around $13.4 million in higher tax revenues for local governments
· Energy is the livelihood of Michigan's economy, and the Rover pipeline will inject new life into that economy. Michigan will need more gas.
http://www.heritage.com/articles/2014/11/21/chelsea_standard/news/doc546f7e75099d6298155091.txt?viewmode=fullstory

Future meetings will be held in Adrian (12/1), Flint (12/10) and Richmond (12/11). https://secure.sierraclub.org/site/SPageServer;jsessionid=7B623BE60E79ED0B9BF38304C28E8681.app201a?pagename=MINaturalGasPipelinesInterests&AddInterest=8275


Jobs and economic activity
3,000 temporary jobs is a token amount. (Michigan has over 4.4 million total jobs.) Plus, these temporary pipeline jobs would be created purely to support degrading our property and environment and enabling more fracking - one of the most polluting industries in the US.
More pipelines enable more fracking.

One Michigan study concludes at least 15,000 long term jobs would be created just by fixing Michigan roads. http://www.swmpc.org/downloads/michigans_roads_the_cost_of_doing_nothing_and_the_rewards_of_bold_action.pdf

A study by the Michigan Conservative Energy Forum concluded that by continuing the current Michigan energy efficiency program and increasing the State's renewable energy requirement to 20% by 2025 would add 100,000 jobs and $10 BILLION in economic activity to Michigan. http://www.micef.org/index.php/documents

Unlike stated at the meeting, energy is not a major industry in Michigan. It is much smaller in comparison to manufacturing, tourism, agriculture and many others.

Tax revenues and declining property values
Local tax receipts from Rover may be entirely offset by disfiguring and devaluing 12,147 acres of Michigan land and probably lowering tax revenues because of lower property values.

There are conflicting studies on lower property values and pipelines.
However it needs to be pointed out that landowners in Texas are WINNING millions in law suits because gas pipeline easements often cause significant damages to property beyond the easement area. http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/texas-landowners-win-21-million-judgment-against-pipeline-company-over-lower-property-value-251945191.html

Plus, possible problems with property insurance, mortgages, titles, resale and increased road damage, burden on local fire and police, etc.

Declining natural gas use in Michigan
Natural gas usage in Michigan has actually DECLINED over the past 40 years according to US Energy Information Administration. http://www.eia.gov/dnav/ng/ng_sum_lsum_dcu_SMI_a.htm

Even with additional coal plant retirements, higher energy efficiency and renewable energy requirements in Michigan will negate the need for more natural gas for electric generation, building and water heating.

President's commitment, methane, FERC and climate change
President Obama committed the US to cut greenhouse emissions. This includes considerable CO2 from burning natural gas and from methane emissions from leaks. Methane is 86 times more detrimental than carbon dioxide as a GHG during the two decades after it enters the atmosphere. In most cases, this makes natural gas worse for climate change than coal and oil.
As part of the US government, FERC must take serious steps to achieve the President's goals to reduce CO2 and methane emissions. This includes pipelines.

(More on Rover, GHG and FERC meetings in http://adrianoil.blogspot.com/ )

FERC, what is the GHG impact of the Rover pipeline including CO2 and methane leakage?

There is no need for Rover
Michigan already has considerable gas pipeline inflow and outflow capacity with considerable existing capacity to and from Ontario. There are at least 5 gas pipelines between Michigan and Ontario.
http://www.eia.gov/naturalgas/data.cfm#pipelines

DTE and CMS told a Michigan legislator that they did not request the Rover pipeline.

DTE is planning their own Nexus pipeline which will serve Michigan and Canada. Most of it is already built in Michigan.

Michigan has its own large natural gas reserves in the Antrim and Utica-Collingwood fields. http://www.greatlakesenergyforum.com/topics/michigan-shale

Michigan had more underground natural gas storage capacity than any other state in the nation with over 1 trillion cubic feet of capacity. This negates the need for extra pipelines to meet seasonal demands. http://www.eia.gov/state/print.cfm?sid=mi

Energy Transfer and FERC agreed in November 2013 that no additional natural gas pipeline capacity was needed in the Midwest
Energy Transfer stated there was excess pipeline capacity serving the Midwest region. https://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/doc_info.asp?document_id=14040896
FERC agreed to allow ET to abandon this gas pipeline in the Midwest stating, "Trunkline is not obligated to continue to operate capacity … for which there is no demonstration of market demand." CP12-491
https://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/common/opennat.asp?fileID=13392374

Canada has plenty of natural gas and gas pipelines and does not need Rover.
· Canada has more natural gas reserves that the US including considerable reserves Ontario, Quebec and Nova Scotia.
· There are at least eight existing pipelines crossing between Canada and Eastern US states. Many of them are already sending Marcellus/Utica shale gas to Canada.
· And at least six new pipelines and pipeline expansions planned to supply US gas to Eastern Canada. http://www.fossil.energy.gov/programs/gasregulation/border.html
http://www.eia.gov/pub/oil_gas/natural_gas/analysis_publications/ngpipeline/impex_map.html
· Even with coal plant retirements in Ontario, hydro and nuclear account for roughly 90% of total Ontario and Quebec electric generation and wind is a growing percentage of the total.

Drillers want more pipelines because of their profit desire to produce gas far in excess of final customer needs
Drillers/shippers like Range and Antero Resources and American Energy-Utica have spent billions to secure too many oil and gas leases in Marcellus and Utica and are rushing production way beyond demand before many of these leases expire.

Summary
"Public convenience and necessity" should be determined by the natural gas needs of the final customers who will use the gas and not by the profit objectives of shippers and pipeline companies.

Real need, the environment, people's rights, health and quality of life should take precedence as well as the CO2 and methane reduction goals of our country.

FERC please don't be a party to the excessive gas drilling madness.

Just because they are proposed, they don't have to be approved.

Oil pump in Heritage Park

Pump is off and stinks something awful after crude oil.

Tom

Sent from my iPhone

Why the ET Rover Pipeline should not be permitted

The ET Rover pipeline is currently planned as a 42 inch pipeline for the transmission of natural gas from the production site in Ohio and Pennsylvania to the final marketing site in Sarnia, Ontario (Fig. 1).

Fig. 1: The proposed course, dimensions, and market segments of the ET Rover pipeline. Source: energytransfer.com

My comment is in regards to the scoping process within the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to be prepared by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). There are better energy provisioning alternatives to the proposed pipeline available and the environmental impacts of the proposed pipeline outweigh its potential benefits by far.

My comment has 4 parts:

1. The natural gas to be transmitted is produced by hydraulic fracturing (“fracking”), which is a highly insecure, inefficient, and polluting technology that should not be further promoted, which it would, if this transmission and distribution line is build.
2. The transmission of natural gas in pipelines leads to substantial leakage of the potent greenhouse gas methane, which has a climate altering potential that is estimated to be 28-84 times higher than that of carbon dioxide.
3. Serious incidents in the transmission of natural gas in pipelines are less common but if they occur they are often more serious (explosions) and often cause fatalities.
4. Fossil fuels caused and continue to cause global climate change, which already leads to hundreds of human fatalities every year and will substantially impair the survival and well-being of human and non-human life forms for many decades to come. Renewable energy sources are the only energy sources able to cut greenhouse gases and are available right now providing enough energy for all current and future energy needs. The sooner we switch to renewable energy sources the sooner planet Earth will recover from the inevitable consequences of fossil energies. Every new investment into fossil fuels is unnecessary and unethical and should therefore be avoided.

Below, I will provide arguments and evidence for each of my four statements.

1. Fracking is insecure, inefficient, and causes environmental impacts that outweigh its benefits by far. Workers on fracking sites are at risk of silicosis caused by the exposure to high levels of silica, found in dust particles from hydraulic fracturing sand (OSHA 2014). In addition, many oilfield workers involved in “fracking” lost their lives or endured serious injuries (Earthjustice 2014; Meyer and Stepans 2014; Mountainkeeper Catskill 2014).

Hydraulic fracturing is a high input technology and is therefore in many cases highly inefficient. A lot of energy and water is needed to frack a well and many wells do not pay back the investment. The only reason why the business stays profitable are tax incentives and subsidies, the 2005 exemption of hydraulic fracturing from the Safe Drinking Water Act – known as the “Halliburton Loophole”, the exemption of “smaller” oil and gas production sites from the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NEHAPS) within the Clean Air Act, the exemption from stormwater runoff permits within the Clean Water Act, the exemption of oil and gas production sites from the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCAA) governing the disposal of solid and hazardous wastes, exemptions from the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), known as the “Superfund Law”, and the Toxic Release Inventory (TRI), which requires most industries to report toxic substances to the EPA (Earthworks 2014) – and the occasional high-output well. Most of the up to 5 Million gallons of water pushed underground in each well (Mielke and others 2014) is lost or cannot be used for anything else due to chemical contamination (Fontenot and others 2013).

The environmental impacts of the production end of fracking include ground- and surface water pollution (Fontenot and others 2013; Jackson and others 2013; Mall 2014; Vidic and others 2013), methane emissions (Field and others 2014; Howarth 2014; Schneising and others 2014), emissions of volatile chemicals, e.g. BTEX, formaldehyde, hydrogen sulfide and methylene chloride (Argo 2001; Colborn and others 2014; Macey and others 2014), and other concerns (Adgate and others 2014; Bamberger and Oswald 2012; Brittingham and others 2014; Colborn and others 2011). Most current comprehensive analyses of the environmental and social cost-benefit ratio of fracking come to the conclusion that the technology should be put on hold until its flaws are solved, or should not be continued because the production of shale oil and gas allows consumers to continue the wasteful use of fossil fuels and thus causing more severe global climate change (Newell and Raimi 2014; Sovacool 2014; Vengosh and others 2014).

2. According to estimates by the EPA, most methane leakage occurs during the transmission of natural gas (0.7%).

Fig. 2: Picture credit: John Bellamy/Stanford University

While most independent studies consider the EPA’s estimates of the total amount of methane leakage from natural gas operations to be substantially below the real values (Brandt and others 2014; Field and others 2014; Howarth 2014), the allocation of leakage to be highest in transmission and distribution is undisputed (Alvarez and others 2012). Fugitive methane emissions from natural gas systems represent a significant source of global warming pollution in the U.S. (Bradbury and others 2014). In fact, compared to carbon dioxide, methane is considered to be 28x to 84x more potent as a greenhouse gas (Fig. 3) (Howarth 2014).

Fig. 3: Global Warming potential of methane compared to carbon dioxide. Picture credit: Allen (2014)

3. Serious incidents in the transmission of natural gas in pipelines are less common but if they occur they are often more serious (explosions) and often cause fatalities. From 1994 until 2013, the PHMSA (Pipeline & Hazardous Materials Safety Administration) recorded 1236 significant incidences in gas transmission, causing 41 fatalities, 195 injuries and $1,717,072,424 of property damages (PHMSA 2013).
4. Fossil fuels caused and continue to cause global climate change, which already leads to hundreds of human fatalities every year and will substantially impair the survival and well-being of human and non-human life forms for many decades to come (IPCC 2014). Renewable energy sources are available now and are capable to provide enough energy for all current and future energy needs (Becker and others 2014; Delucchi and Jacobson 2011; 2013; Jacobson 2009; Jacobson and Delucchi 2011). The sooner we switch to renewable energy sources the sooner planet earth will recover from the inevitable consequences of fossil energies (Jacobson and Streets 2009). Every new investment into fossil fuels should therefore be avoided.

Fig. 4: Technologically and financially feasible transition to a 100% renewable energy supply for Michigan. Picture credit: thesolutionsproject.org

References Cited

Adgate JL, Goldstein BD, McKenzie LM. 2014. Potential Public Health Hazards, Exposures and Health Effects from Unconventional Natural Gas Development. Environmental Science & Technology 48(15):8307-8320.

Allen DT. 2014. Methane emissions from natural gas production and use: reconciling bottom-up and top-down measurements. Current Opinion in Chemical Engineering 5(0):78-83.

Alvarez RA, Pacala SW, Winebrake JJ, Chameides WL, Hamburg SP. 2012. Greater focus needed on methane leakage from natural gas infrastructure. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 109(17):6435-6440.

Argo J. 2001. Unhealthy Effects of Upstream Oil and Gas Flaring. Sydney, NS, Canada: SAVE OUR SEAS and SHORES (SOSS).

Bamberger M, Oswald RE. 2012. Impacts of gas drilling on human and animal health. New Solut 22(1):51-77.

Becker S, Frew BA, Andresen GB, Zeyer T, Schramm S, Greiner M, Jacobson MZ. 2014. Features of a fully renewable US electricity system: Optimized mixes of wind and solar PV and transmission grid extensions. Energy 72:443-458.

Bradbury A, Obeiter M, Draucker L, Wang W, Stevens A. 2014. Clearing the Air - Reducing Upstream Greenhouse Gas Emissions from U.S. Natural Gas Systems [Internet]. World Resources Institute. Available from: http://www.wri.org/publication/clearing-air

Brandt AR, Heath GA, Kort EA, O'Sullivan F, Pétron G, Jordaan SM, Tans P, Wilcox J, Gopstein AM, Arent D et al. . 2014. Methane Leaks from North American Natural Gas Systems. Science 343(6172):733-735.

Brittingham MC, Maloney KO, Farag AM, Harper DD, Bowen ZH. 2014. Ecological Risks of Shale Oil and Gas Development to Wildlife, Aquatic Resources and their Habitats. Environmental Science & Technology 48(19):11034-11047.

Colborn T, Kwiatkowski C, Schultz K, Bachran M. 2011. Natural Gas Operations from a Public Health Perspective. Human and Ecological Risk Assessment: An International Journal 17(5):1039-1056.

Colborn T, Schultz K, Herrick L, Kwiatkowski C. 2014. An Exploratory Study of Air Quality near Natural Gas Operations. Human and Ecological Risk Assessment: An International Journal 20(1):86-105.

Delucchi MA, Jacobson MZ. 2011. Providing all global energy with wind, water, and solar power, Part II: Reliability, system and transmission costs, and policies. Energy Policy 39(3):1170-1190.

Delucchi MA, Jacobson MZ. 2013. Meeting the world's energy needs entirely with wind, water, and solar power. Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists 69(4):30-40.

Earthjustice. 2014. Fracking Across the United States [Internet]. Available from: http://earthjustice.org/features/campaigns/fracking-across-the-united-states

Earthworks. 2014. Loopholes for polluters - The oil and gas industry’s exemptions to major environmental laws [Internet]. Washington, DC: EARTHWORKS. Available from: http://www.shalegas.energy.gov/resources/060211_earthworks_fs_oilgasexemptions.pdf

Field RA, Soltis J, Murphy S. 2014. Air quality concerns of unconventional oil and natural gas production. Environmental Science: Processes & Impacts 16(5):954-969.

Fontenot BE, Hunt LR, Hildenbrand ZL, Carlton Jr DD, Oka H, Walton JL, Hopkins D, Osorio A, Bjorndal B, Hu QH et al. . 2013. An Evaluation of Water Quality in Private Drinking Water Wells Near Natural Gas Extraction Sites in the Barnett Shale Formation. Environmental Science & Technology 47(17):10032-10040.

Howarth RW. 2014. A bridge to nowhere: methane emissions and the greenhouse gas footprint of natural gas. Energy Science & Engineering 2(2):47-60.

IPCC. 2014. IPCC Fifth Assessment Report [Internet]. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC); [accessed November 2014]. Available from: http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/index.shtml

Jackson RB, Vengosh A, Darrah TH, Warner NR, Down A, Poreda RJ, Osborn SG, Zhao K, Karr JD. 2013. Increased stray gas abundance in a subset of drinking water wells near Marcellus shale gas extraction. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 110(28):11250-11255.

Jacobson MZ. 2009. Review of solutions to global warming, air pollution, and energy security. Energy & Environmental Science 2(2):148-173.

Jacobson MZ, Delucchi MA. 2011. Providing all global energy with wind, water, and solar power, Part I: Technologies, energy resources, quantities and areas of infrastructure, and materials. Energy Policy 39(3):1154-1169.

Jacobson MZ, Streets DG. 2009. Influence of future anthropogenic emissions on climate, natural emissions, and air quality. Journal of Geophysical Research-Atmospheres 114.

Macey G, Breech R, Chernaik M, Cox C, Larson D, Thomas D, Carpenter D. 2014. Air concentrations of volatile compounds near oil and gas production: a community-based exploratory study. Environmental Health 13(1):82.

Mall A. 2014. Incidents where hydraulic fracturing is a suspected cause of drinking water contamination | Amy Mall's Blog | Switchboard, from NRDC [Internet]. Natural Resources Defense Council. Available from: http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/amall/incidents_where_hydraulic_frac.html

Meyer S, Stepans P. 2014. Hydraulic fracturing oilfield accidents [Internet]. [accessed November 2014]. Available from: http://mss-lawfirm.com/oilfield-accidents-fracking/

Mielke E, Anadon LD, Narayanamurti V. 2014. Water Consumption of Energy Resource Extraction, Processing, and Conversion [Internet]. Energy Technology Innovation Policy research group, Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, Harvard Kennedy School. Available from: http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/files/ETIP-DP-2010-15-final-4.pdf

Mountainkeeper Catskill. 2014. Gas Drilling Accidents [Internet]. [accessed November 2014]. Available from: http://www.catskillmountainkeeper.org/our-programs/fracking/whats-wrong-with-fracking-2/accidents/

Newell RG, Raimi D. 2014. Implications of Shale Gas Development for Climate Change. Environmental Science & Technology 48(15):8360-8368.

OSHA. 2014. HAZARD ALERT - Worker Exposure to Silica during Hydraulic Fracturing [Internet]. Occupational Safety & Health Administration (OSHA); [accessed November 2014]. Available from: https://www.osha.gov/dts/hazardalerts/hydraulic_frac_hazard_alert.html

PHMSA. 2013. PHMSA - Data & Statistics - Pipeline Incident 20 Year Trends [Internet]. PHMSA - US Department of Transportation Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration. Available from: http://www.phmsa.dot.gov/pipeline/library/datastatistics/pipelineincidenttrends

Schneising O, Burrows JP, Dickerson RR, Buchwitz M, Reuter M, Bovensmann H. 2014. Remote sensing of fugitive methane emissions from oil and gas production in North American tight geologic formations. Earth's Future 2(10):2014EF000265.

Sovacool BK. 2014. Cornucopia or curse? Reviewing the costs and benefits of shale gas hydraulic fracturing (fracking). Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 37(0):249-264.

Vengosh A, Jackson RB, Warner N, Darrah TH, Kondash A. 2014. A Critical Review of the Risks to Water Resources from Unconventional Shale Gas Development and Hydraulic Fracturing in the United States. Environmental Science & Technology 48(15):8334-8348.

Vidic RD, Brantley SL, Vandenbossche JM, Yoxtheimer D, Abad JD. 2013. Impact of shale gas development on regional water quality. Science 340(6134):1235009.

ET Rover Pipeline through Adrian is up for Puplic Comment on December 1

Reblogged from a post of the Sierraclub Michigan that can be found here

 Southeast Michigan's Natural Gas and Oil Pipeline Boom:

What's happening and How to have your Say
Enbridge Line 6B oil pipeline construction, photo by Ron Kar
Proposed natural gas pipelines in SE Michigan will cause
as many local impacts as the replacement of the Enbridge
Line 6B oil pipeline (above) and keep pushing fossil fuels,
instead of clean energy alternatives. Photo by Ron Kardos

Southeastern Michigan communities have been confronting at least three proposed new or expanded massive natural gas pipelines designed to move Pennsylvania, West Virginia and Ohio fracked natural gas into and through Michigan to Ontario. Sierra Club opposes the massive ramp up in natural gas development around the nation through fracking that is one driver of these new pipeline proposals because the drilling, extraction and leakage in delivering this fossil fuel falls far short of being the "clean energy" the industry wants you to think it is. In addition, the construction of massive pipelines like these cause significant local environmental impacts as well.

Sierra Club leaders in the Michigan Chapter's Huron Valley, Crossroads, Nepessing and Southeast Michigan Groups are stepping up to the plate to fight pipelines and they encourage your engagement as well. Scroll down to find contacts for each of these four Groups who can help connect you with the fight in your area.  We also encourage you to sign up below so that we can follow up with you as each project develops.  These proposals are moving fairly fast, but there is time to weigh in now on at least one of the projects.
Three Natural Gas Pipelines Proposed:

Imagine a swoosh like the Nike logo aound the western end of Lake Erie and you'll have an idea of the maps showing three different proposed natural gas pipelines.  The proposed pipelines are the ET Rover Pipeline, the Nexus Pipeline (a partnership of DTE Energy, Enbridge Inc. and Spectra Energy) and the Utopia Project.  Each pipeline would start in eastern Ohio, western Pennsylvania or West Virginia, cross Ohio and Michigan before crossing the international border to enter Ontario, Canada.  Each project provides information on the links provided above including maps of the intended path.  But as has already been seen with the ET Rover project, the proposed location of the pipeline may be changed.  There are several critical hurdles for any additional construction of these pipelines, which include: acquisition of rights of way from private or public landowners; local permitting approvals if warranted; and approval by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), which must follow the federal National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), in particular by provide for a public environmental review process.
.
Public Input Opportunities on the ET Rover Pipeline
calltoaction.jpg

Currently, attention is focused on the ET Rover Pipeline which wants to build a new pipeline up to 42 inches in diameter from Defiance, Ohio, through Michigan to Sarnia, Ontario.  The company is seeking approval from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), which must prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to weigh whether there are better alternatives to this proposal and whether the environmental impacts are too great to authorize the requested permits.

The first step in the EIS process for ET Rover is for FERC to take public comment under the Scoping Process.  Scoping is an initial step in the EIS in which the public needs to raise questions, concerns, provide information and other knowledge that ensures that the agency considers all the questions that need to be addressed.  The comments can be broad, such as this EIS needs to fully consider impacts of climate change related to the increased use of natural gas connected to increasing delivery of natural gas to Michigan and Ontario.  Or these comments can be very localized, for example indentifying sensitive ecosystems or raising specific, local health concerns. Most important is for ALL concerns or questions to be raised now, or they may not be considered in the EIS.  You don't need to be an expert to offer input, and asking questions about issues that concern you as part of your comments is just as valid as providing specific information in the Scoping Process.
Four Public Meetings in Michigan on ET Rover Scoping Process:

FERC has announced four public meetings to take public input on the Scoping process in Michigan (Google maps linked on the addresses):

November 20, 2014 at 6 p.m.
George Prinzing Auditorium
500 Washington Street
Chelsea, MI 48118

December 1, 2014 at 6 p.m.
Adrian High School Auditorium
785 Riverside Avenue
Adrian, MI  49221

December 10, 2014 at 6 p.m.
Holiday Inn Gateway Center
5353 Gateway Centre
Flint, MI  48507

December 11, 2014 at 6 p.m.
Maniaci Banquet
69227 North Main Street
Richmond, MI  48062


Written Comments on ET Rover Scoping Process:

 The public can also provide written public comments by December 18th through FERC's online comment system or through regular mail. Below are instructions on how to file a comment on the proposed ET Rover Pipeline with FERC. Filing just a written comment as an individual does not require you to register as a user.

                Go to the FERC eComment website. (www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp)
                Click on the eComment button, which takes you to an authorization page.
                Enter your name and email address, and type in the “authorization” letters / numbers that appear.
                Click on authorize.
                FERC will send you an email. Click on the link in the email.
                You should be taken to a page on the FERC website with your name and email filled in.
                In the field for “Enter Docket Number” type PF14-14 (no spaces)
                Click on the Search button.
                Click on the blue cross in the far right column under the heading labelled “Select”
                Enter up to 6000 characters in the box for editing a comment.

Provide written public comments by US Mail by sending your letter and 14 copies to arrive before December 18th to:

Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
888 First Street, N.E. Washington 20426
.
Sierra Club Contacts:

Below you'll find Sierra Club volunteer leaders in each of the four regional Michigan Chapter Groups that are already tracking and working to stop the massive natural gas pipeline proposals coming through southeastern Michigan.  In addition and if you are outside of these Groups but wish to help, please provide us your information by linking below the contact info.  We'll do our best to keep you apprised of the new developments.

Nepessing Group (Genessee County, Lapeer County and Northwestern Oakland County)
Ellen Waara (ellenwaara (at) gmail.com) 

Southeast Michigan Group (St. Clair County, Macomb County, part of Oakland and Wayne Counties)
Jean Gramlich (jeangramlich (at) msn.com)

Crossroads Group (Livingston County and western Oakland County)
Ron Kardos  (rmichael (at) sbcglobal.net)

Huron Valley Group (Washtenaw, Lenawee, and Monroe Counties)
Nancy Shiffler




PLEASE USE THE LINK BELOW TO SIGN UP FOR UPDATES ON THESE PIPELINE PROPOSALS

Keep Me Up To Date on Pipeline Proposals in Michigan

Participate in this survey...