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.
