Maryland had a Governor O'Malley who served as head of Governor's Association and his job was to promote exporting natural gas even as he posed progressive with 'exploratory fracking' to frack 'safely'.
It is likely those state funding of millions in exploring the effects on Marcellus Aquifer were used to find the best producing real estate for this drilling and make sure connected people own the land. Fracking is to environmental devastation as Wall Street looting of US Treasuries and people's pockets of tens of trillions of dollars in fraud is to the crippling implosion of the US economy.
THESE ACTIONS ARE THE SAME-- DONE BY THE SAME NATIONAL LEADERS WITH NO MORALS, ETHICS, NO SENSE OF RULE OF LAW, AND ABSOLUTELY NO CARE ABOUT CONSEQUENCES.
You know you have global corporate pols leading in government when the term 'green energy' can be applied to fracking. There is nothing 'green' about fracking and it is the only way to extract natural gas in quantities to prove a viable energy source. So, the point to consider is this-----
if fracking is so harmful why would we want to export and drive production sky high? Why not simply extract what the US needs over a long period of time?
The answer is simple----we have national leaders working for global corporations that only want a few to become extremely rich as fast as they can----these are not US politicians----since US politicians would work for what is best for the nation....they are Clinton/Obama global corporate neo-liberals and Bush neo-cons.
Look below to see what is actually happening as politicians are posing progressive by calling natural gas sustainable against Climate Change. They are telling Americans that this is reducing CO2 when in fact the fracking process is creating a CO2 toxic mix underground while releasing tons of methane ----WORSE THAN CO2----ALL OVER THE WORLD.
'The problem with this overlap, the researchers found, is that shale-gas extraction involves fracturing rock that could be needed as an impenetrable cover to hold CO2 underground permanently and prevent it from leaking back into the atmosphere'.
Fracking Would Emit Large Quantities of Greenhouse Gases
"Fugitive methane" released during shale gas drilling could accelerate climate change
- By Mark Fischetti on January 20, 2012
Opposition to the hydraulic fracturing of deep shales to release natural gas rose sharply last year over worries that the large volumes of chemical-laden water used in the operations could contaminate drinking water. Then, in early January, earthquakes in Ohio were blamed on the disposal of that water in deep underground structures. Yesterday, two Cornell University professors said at a press conference that fracking releases large amounts of natural gas, which consists mostly of methane, directly into the atmosphere—much more than previously thought.
Robert Howarth, an ecologist and evolutionary biologist, and Anthony Ingraffea, a civil and environmental engineer, reported that fracked wells leak 40 to 60 percent more methane than conventional natural gas wells. When water with its chemical load is forced down a well to break the shale, it flows back up and is stored in large ponds or tanks. But volumes of methane also flow back up the well at the same time and are released into the atmosphere before they can be captured for use. This giant belch of "fugitive methane" can be seen in infrared videos taken at well sites.
Molecule for molecule, methane traps 20 to 25 times more heat in the atmosphere than does carbon dioxide. The effect dissipates faster, however: airborne methane remains in the atmosphere for about 12 years before being scrubbed out by ongoing chemical reactions, whereas CO2 lasts 30 to 95 years. Nevertheless, recent data from the two Cornell scientists and others indicate that within the next 20 years, methane will contribute 44 percent of the greenhouse gas load produced by the U.S. Of that portion, 17 percent will come from all natural gas operations.
Currently, pipeline leaks are the main culprit, but fracking is a quickly growing contributor. Ingraffea pointed out that although 25,000 high-volume shale-gas wells are already operating in the U.S., hundreds of thousands are scheduled to go into operation within 20 years, and millions will be operating worldwide, significantly expanding emissions and keeping atmospheric methane levels high despite the 12-year dissipation time.
Howarth said he is particularly concerned about fracking emissions because recent data indicates that the planet is entering a period of rapid climate change. He noted that the average global temperature compared with the early 1900s is now expected to increase by 1.5 degrees Celsius within the next 15 to 35 years, which he called "a tipping point" toward aggressive climate change. More and more fracking would speed the world to that transition or undermine efforts to reduce emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gases. The notion, Ingraffea said, that shale gas is a desirable "bridge fuel" from oil to widespread renewable energy supplies several decades from now "makes no sense" in terms of climate change.
Howarth and Ingraffea spoke from Cornell, where they also released a paper (pdf) that is about to be published by the journal Climatic Change, which details their analysis. It follows up on a paper they published in April 2011 that comprehensively analyzed emissions from fracking. The gas industry disputes that paper. So does Cornell geologist Lawrence Cathles, in a commentary in Climatic Change. He estimates that fugitive emissions are only 10 percent of what Howarth and Ingraffea maintain, and that shale gas would indeed be a good replacement for home heating oil and for coal used in power plants.
Capturing the big belch of gas could prevent the problem. Ingraffea said capture is difficult because the gas is emitted along with the flow-back water, but a procedure known as a "green completion," in which special equipment traps the gas, has been shown to work. Regulators do not require that step, however, and the market price of methane is less than the cost of capturing it in that way, so drillers have no incentive to do so for economic reasons.
Looking locally people are separated from what this means to them thinking this is just some far away problem. Pumping CO2 into the ground in lieu of water is being done not for safe storage of CO2 from coal fire power plants as Maryland allows to operate----it is being done because there is not enough water in the world to do all this fracking. They are creating huge underground compressed CO2 pits that all scientists already no will leak---will explode----releasing much of the CO2 they are pretending to be 'storing'. The damage to Climate Change will be profound----and the health damages from low-lying high concentration CO2 will be a reality.
Keep in mind----these are the same sociopaths that allowed all of our water and sewer pipe systems to go without repair to the point of crumbling infrastructure now telling us this huge network of natural gas pipeline known for the capacity of explosion and pipeline failure
WILL BE EFFECTIVELY CONTAINED AND NO SAFETY HAZARD TO COMMUNITIES UNDER WHICH THESE PIPELINES ARE BEING BUILT.
Below you see what no one needing to be a rocket scientist can answer-----if you break the shale to frack you will not have a solid shale seal to contain the injected CO2 FOR GOODNESS SAKE.
How Fracking Could Disrupt CO2 Sequestration
April 6, 2012 | 5:18 PM
By Susan Phillips
A technician stands in front of the Krechba carbon capture and sequestration treatment plant in Algeria.
The goal of carbon dioxide sequestration is to bury the harmful greenhouse gas thousands of feet underground. The goal of fracking is to release natural gas from deeply buried deposits. So, can the two coexist within close range? A recent study published in February by two Princeton University engineering professors tries to answer that question with their paper “Potential Restrictions for CO2 Sequestration Sites Due to Shale and Tight Gas Production.”
“Production of natural gas from shale and other tight formations involves fracturing the shale with the explicit objective to greatly increase the permeability of the shale. As such, shale gas production is in direct conflict with the use of shale formations as a caprock barrier to CO2 migration.”
Shale is considered a good lid to keep the CO2 from leaking back out into the atmosphere. But hydraulic fracturing, using high pressured water to fracture the rock, and sand to keep those fractures open, could end up poking holes in that lid. It all depends on how much CO2 sequestration happens near frack jobs. And that’s what the researchers, T.R. Eliot and M.A. Celia, looked at.
“These analyses indicate that colocation of deep saline aquifers with shale and tight gas production could significantly affect the sequestration capacity for CCS operations. This suggests that a more comprehensive management strategy for subsurface resource utilization should be developed.”
Here you see a global sale of fracking making this CO2 sequestration sound so 'green'=====a win-win for the world!
What is does is create the illusion that coal-fired power plants are now not so bad because all the CO2 will be buried and aid in the 'green' fracking.
ALL THIS FROM A 'SHIP OF FOOLS'.
This is what happens when we allow global pols to stay in office and to corporatize our public universities so we have no research shouting all this is crazy and unnecessary.
So, because fracking requires more water than can possibly be found on earth to drive the fracking process------Wall Street needs to sell this idea of CO2 sequestration as a good thing providing reports saying as such THAT ARE NOT TRUE.
Fracking Industry Finds a New Savior
Published Mon, Dec 1, 2014 | Karim Rahemtulla
Share on facebook Share
Carbon dioxide is harmful to the atmosphere and the leading cause of pollution. Even countries like China and India recognize that they need to reduce their carbon footprints.
Still, few countries are willing to give up coal as it’s the cheapest and most plentiful source of energy. So the industry is looking to “clean coal” as a solution.
As I told readers last week, though, clean coal isn’t really… well, clean. That’s just spin put on by the coal industry to lessen the negative impact of carbon emissions in the public eye. Carbon dioxide, the by-product of burning coal, doesn’t just disappear.
But there’s another lesser-known use for the gas – one that could end up being the saving grace for the coal and fracking industries in the United States.
Savior Rising From the MistsFracking for oil and gas requires the propulsion of water and chemicals at very high rates of pressure into shale rock formations. This high pressure essentially loosens the oil and gas that’s lodged in tight crevices and forces them to the surface.
While the U.S. fracking industry is successful enough to spook the Middle East, the industry is still facing a problem.
You see, the water used has to be relatively clean, and it cannot be re-used without very expensive treatments. On top of that, the chemicals used with the water have environmentalists up in arms. They say there’s a risk of groundwater contamination.
Fortunately, a solution could enter soon from stage left.
Companies like General Electric (GE) are experimenting with using carbon dioxide – the same pollution-exploding by-product of coal gasification and coal burning – in part of the fracking process.
During tests, the gas is highly compressed and shot into the shale formation. This creates pressure that pushes oil and gas out of the tight formations, just like when water is used.
This sounds like the perfect solution for both the coal and fracking industries… and it just might be.
The gas can be highly compressed and applied at a higher pressure, making it more efficient – and the fracking industry can reduce its reliance on water.
In turn, the coal industry can sequester noxious carbon dioxide gas. Theoretically, the carbon dioxide that’s shot into the ground should be captured in the formation and unable to return to the surface or atmosphere in a gaseous form. Plus, any gas that does come up can be reused, unlike with water.
Unfortunately, there are hurdles that are preventing this method from being a near-term solution.
Forgiving the Sins of CO2One of the biggest problems is that there are no pipelines for carbon dioxide that can transport the gas to the various shale regions. That means major infrastructure projects would need to be funded. Carbon dioxide can be transported in trucks, but that’s also very expensive.
As a solution, GE is working with Statoil (STO), the giant Norwegian oil and gas company, to formulate a super-critical fluid – a chilled version of carbon dioxide that’s neither a liquid nor a solid. The hope is that this formula will become the standard when it’s correctly formulated.
This method is just the beginning of finding a real solution to the carbon emissions problem.
The United States was already leading the way with carbon sequestration and filtering technology. Now, there’s even more incentive to move forward with a clean coal solution, as repurposing carbon dioxide gas will help in our quest for energy independence.
Bottom line: What’s now considered a pariah could very well become a savior in the not-too-distant future.
And “the chase” continues,
What WE THE PEOPLE already know is that government controlled by global corporate pols neglect infrastructure until is is crumbling ----they do not monitor or provide oversight and accountability since these Federal, state, and local agencies have been defunded and dismantled. They will simply allow things to go until the damage being done from decaying pipelines becomes politically unsustainable. Think if these global pols manage to keep hold of power---they won't care what citizens think.
Using pipeline for oil is far different----oil is less combustible. That means it will not explode and leakage can be contained with some cleanup. Natural gas is VERY combustible-----it will become airborne and that is why when there is a problem there are often major injuries and/or death.
So, the record so far may not be a problem because pipelines are relatively new----but the number of incidents are growing as these pipelines are brought through our communities.
'One of the biggest problems contributing to leaks and ruptures is pretty simple: pipelines are getting older. More than half of the nation's pipelines are at least 50 years old. Last year in Allentown Pa., a natural gas pipeline exploded underneath a city street, killing five people who lived in the houses above and igniting a fire that damaged 50 buildings. The pipeline – made of cast iron – had been installed in 1928'.
This article is long but please glance through:
Pipelines Explained: How Safe are America’s 2.5 Million Miles of Pipelines?
Map of major natural gas and oil pipelines in the United States. Hazardous liquid lines in red, gas transmission lines in blue. Source: Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration.
by Lena Groeger
ProPublica, Nov. 15, 2012, 1:27 p.m.
At 6:11 p.m. on September 6, 2010, San Bruno, Calif. 911 received an urgent call. A gas station had just exploded and a fire with flames reaching 300 feet was raging through the neighborhood. The explosion was so large that residents suspected an airplane crash. But the real culprit was found underground: a ruptured pipeline spewing natural gas caused a blast that left behind a 72 foot long crater, killed eight people, and injured more than fifty.
Over 2,000 miles away in Michigan, workers were still cleaning up another pipeline accident, which spilled 840,000 gallons of crude oil into the Kalamazoo River in 2010. Estimated to cost $800 million, the accident is the most expensive pipeline spill in U.S. history.
Interactive MapPipeline Safety Tracker
Over the last few years a series of incidents have brought pipeline safety to national – and presidential – attention. As Obama begins his second term he will likely make a key decision on the controversial Keystone XL pipeline, a proposed pipeline extension to transport crude from Canada to the Gulf of Mexico.
The administration first delayed the permit for the pipeline on environmental grounds, but has left the door open to future proposals for Keystone’s northern route. Construction on the southern route is already underway, sparking fierce opposition from some landowners and environmentalists.
The problem, protesters say, is that any route will pose hazards to the public. While pipeline operator TransCanada has declared that Keystone will be the safest pipeline ever built in North America, critics are skeptical.
“It's inevitable that as pipelines age, as they are exposed to the elements, eventually they are going to spill,” said Tony Iallonardo of the National Wildlife Federation. “They’re ticking time bombs."
Critics of the Keystone proposal point to the hundreds of pipeline accidents that occur every year. They charge that system wide, antiquated pipes, minimal oversight and inadequate precautions put the public and the environment at increasing risk. Pipeline operators point to billions of dollars spent on new technologies and a gradual improvement over the last two decades as proof of their commitment to safety.
Pipelines are generally regarded as a safe way to transport fuel, a far better alternative to tanker trucks or freight trains. The risks inherent in transporting fuel through pipelines are analogous to the risks inherent in traveling by airplane. Airplanes are safer than cars, which kill about 70 times as many people a year (highway accidents killed about 33,000 people in 2010, while aviation accidents killed 472). But when an airplane crashes, it is much more deadly than any single car accident, demands much more attention, and initiates large investigations to determine precisely what went wrong.
The same holds true for pipelines. Based on fatality statistics from 2005 through 2009, oil pipelines are roughly 70 times as safe as trucks, which killed four times as many people during those years, despite transporting only a tiny fraction of fuel shipments. But when a pipeline does fail, the consequences can be catastrophic (though typically less so than airplane accidents), with the very deadliest accidents garnering media attention and sometimes leading to a federal investigation.
While both air travel and pipelines are safer than their road alternatives, the analogy only extends so far. Airplanes are replaced routinely and older equipment is monitored regularly for airworthiness and replaced when it reaches its safety limits. Pipelines, on the other hand, can stay underground, carrying highly pressurized gas and oil for decades – even up to a century and beyond. And while airplanes have strict and uniform regulations and safety protocols put forth by the Federal Aviation Administration, such a uniform set of standards does not exist for pipelines.
Critics maintain that while they’re relatively safe, pipelines should be safer. In many cases, critics argue, pipeline accidents could have been prevented with proper regulation from the government and increased safety measures by the industry. The 2.5 million miles of America’s pipelines suffer hundreds of leaks and ruptures every year, costing lives and money. As existing lines grow older, critics warn that the risk of accidents on those lines will only increase.
While states with the most pipeline mileage – like Texas, California, and Louisiana – also have the most incidents, breaks occur throughout the far-flung network of pipelines. Winding under city streets and countryside, these lines stay invisible most of the time. Until they fail.
Since 1986, pipeline accidents have killed more than 500 people, injured over 4,000, and cost nearly seven billion dollars in property damages. Using government data, ProPublica has mapped thousands of these incidents in a new interactive news application, which provides detailed information about the cause and costs of reported incidents going back nearly three decades.
Pipelines break for many reasons – from the slow deterioration of corrosion to equipment or weld failures to construction workers hitting pipes with their excavation equipment. Unforeseen natural disasters also lead to dozens of incidents a year. This year Hurricane Sandy wreaked havoc on the natural gas pipelines on New Jersey’s barrier islands. From Bay Head to Long Beach Island, falling trees, dislodged homes and flooding caused more than 1,600 pipeline leaks. All leaks have been brought under control and no one was harmed, according to a New Jersey Natural Gas spokeswoman. But the company was forced to shut down service to the region, leaving 28,000 people without gas, and it may be months before they get it back.
One of the biggest problems contributing to leaks and ruptures is pretty simple: pipelines are getting older. More than half of the nation's pipelines are at least 50 years old. Last year in Allentown Pa., a natural gas pipeline exploded underneath a city street, killing five people who lived in the houses above and igniting a fire that damaged 50 buildings. The pipeline – made of cast iron – had been installed in 1928.
A fire rages through Allentown, PA, after a gas line explosion in Feb. 2011Not all old pipelines are doomed to fail, but time is a big contributor to corrosion, a leading cause of pipeline failure. Corrosion has caused between 15 and 20 percent of all reported “significant incidents”, which is bureaucratic parlance for an incident that resulted in a death, injury or extensive property damage. That’s over 1,400 incidents since 1986.
Corrosion is also cited as a chief concern of opponents of the Keystone XL extension. The new pipeline would transport a type of crude called diluted bitumen, or “dilbit.” Keystone’s critics make the case that the chemical makeup of this heavier type of oil is much more corrosive than conventional oil, and over time could weaken the pipeline.
Operator TransCanada says that the Keystone XL pipeline will transport crude similar to what’s been piped into the U.S. for more than a decade, and that the new section of pipeline will be built and tested to meet all federal safety requirements. And in fact, none of the 14 spills that happened in the existing Keystone pipeline since 2010 were caused by corrosion, according to an investigation by the U.S. Department of State.
The specific effects of dilbit on pipelines – and whether the heavy crude would actually lead to more accidents – is not definitively understood by scientists. The National Academies of Science is currently in the middle of study on dilbit and pipeline corrosion, due out by next year. In the meantime, TransCanada has already begun construction of the southern portion of the line, but has no assurance it will get a permit from the Obama administration to build the northern section. (NPR has a detailed map of the existing and proposed routes.)
Little Government Regulation for Thousands of Miles
While a slew of federal and state agencies oversee some aspect of America’s pipelines, the bulk of government monitoring and enforcement falls to a small agency within the Department of Transportation called the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration – pronounced “FIM-sa” by insiders. The agency only requires that seven percent of natural gas lines and 44 percent of all hazardous liquid lines be subject to their rigorous inspection criteria and inspected regularly. The rest of the regulated pipelines are still inspected, according to a PHMSA official, but less often.
The inconsistent rules and inspection regime come in part from a historical accident. In the 60's and 70's, two laws established a federal role in pipeline safety and set national rules for new pipelines. For example, operators were required to conduct more stringent testing to see whether pipes could withstand high pressures, and had to meet new specifications for how deep underground pipelines must be installed.
But the then-new rules mostly didn’t apply to pipelines already built – such as the pipeline that exploded in San Bruno. That pipeline, which burst open along a defective seam weld, would never have passed modern high-pressure requirements according to a federal investigation. But because it was installed in 1956, it was never required to.
"No one wanted all the companies to dig up and retest their pipelines," explained Carl Weimer, executive director of the Pipeline Safety Trust, a public charity that promotes fuel transportation safety. So older pipes were essentially grandfathered into less testing, he said.
A burned out car and charred remains of a home in San Bruno, C.A. after a pipeline explosion in Sept. 2010 Later reforms in the 1990’s mandated more testing for oil pipelines, and today PHMSA requires operators to test pipelines in "high consequence" areas, which include population centers or areas near drinking water. But many old pipelines in rural areas aren’t covered by the same strict regulations.
Some types of pipelines – such as the “gathering” lines that connect wells to process facilities or larger transmission lines – lack any PHMSA regulation at all. A GAO report estimates that of the roughly 230,000 miles of gathering lines, only 24,000 are federally regulated. Because many of these lines operate at lower pressures and generally go through remote areas, says the GAO, the government collects no data on ruptures or spills, and has no enforced standards for pipeline strength, welds, or underground depth on the vast majority of these pipes.
The problem, critics argue, is that today’s gathering lines no longer match their old description. Driven in part by the rising demands of hydraulic fracturing, operators have built thousands of miles of new lines to transport gas from fracked wells. Despite the fact that these lines are often just as wide as transmission lines (some up to 2 feet in diameter) and can operate under the same high pressures, they receive little oversight.
Operators use a risk-based system to maintain their pipelines – instead of treating all pipelines equally, they focus safety efforts on the lines deemed most risky, and those that would cause the most harm if they failed. The problem is that each company use different criteria, so "it's a nightmare for regulators," Weimer said.
However, Andrew Black, the president of the Association of Oil Pipe Lines, a trade group whose members include pipeline operators, said that a one-size-fits-all approach would actually make pipelines less safe, because operators (not to mention pipelines) differ so widely.
"Different operators use different pipe components, using different construction techniques, carrying different materials over different terrains," he said. Allowing operators to develop their own strategies for each pipeline is critical to properly maintaining its safety, he contended.
Limited Resources Leave Inspections to Industry
Critics say that PHMSA lacks the resources to adequately monitor the millions of miles of pipelines over which it does have authority. The agency has funding for only 137 inspectors, and often employs even less than that (in 2010 the agency had 110 inspectors on staff). A Congressional Research Service report found a “long-term pattern of understaffing” in the agency’s pipeline safety program. According to the report, between 2001 and 2009 the agency reported a staffing shortfall of an average of 24 employees a year.
A New York Times investigation last year found that the agency is chronically short of inspectors because it just doesn’t have enough money to hire more, possibly due to competition from the pipeline companies themselves, who often hire away PHMSA inspectors for their corporate safety programs, according to the CRS.
Given the limitations of government money and personnel, it is often the industry that inspects its own pipelines. Although federal and state inspectors review paperwork and conduct audits, most on-site pipeline inspections are done by inspectors on the company’s dime.
The industry’s relationship with PHMSA may go further than inspections, critics say. The agency has adopted, at least in part, dozens of safety standards written by the oil and natural gas industry.
"This isn't like the fox guarding the hen house," said Weimer. "It's like the fox designing the hen house."
Operators point out that defining their own standards allows the inspection system to tap into real-world expertise. Adopted standards go through a rulemaking process that gives stakeholders and the public a chance to comment and suggest changes, according to the agency.
Questions have also been raised about the ties between agency officials and the companies they regulate. Before joining the agency in 2009, PHMSA administrator Cynthia Quarterman worked as a legal counsel for Enbridge Energy, the operator involved in the Kalamazoo River accident. But under her leadership, the agency has also brought a record number of enforcement cases against operators, and imposed the highest civil penalty in the agency’s history on the company she once represented.
Proposed Solutions Spark Debate
How to adequately maintain the diversity of pipelines has proved to be a divisive issue – critics arguing for more automatic tests and safety measures and companies pointing to the high cost of such additions.
One such measure is the widespread installation of automatic or remote-controlled shutoff valves, which can quickly stop the flow of gas or oil in an emergency. These valves could help avoid a situation like that after the Kalamazoo River spill, which took operators 17 hours from the initial rupture to find and manually shut off. Operators use these valves already on most new pipelines, but argue that replacing all valves would not be cost-effective and false alarms would unnecessarily shut down fuel supplies. The CRS estimates that even if automatic valves were only required on pipelines in highly populated areas, replacing manual valves with automatic ones could cost the industry hundreds of millions of dollars.
A worker on the Kalamazoo river, helping to clean up an oil spill of almost a million gallons from a ruptured pipeline in July 2010Other measures focus on preventing leaks and ruptures in the first place. The industry already uses robotic devices called "smart pigs" to crawl through a pipeline, clearing debris and taking measurements to detect any problems. But not all pipelines can accommodate smart pigs, and operators don’t routinely run the devices through every line.
Just last month, a smart pig detected a “small anomaly” in the existing Keystone pipeline, prompting TransCanada to shut down the entire line. Environmentalists pointed out that this is not the first time TransCananda has called for a shut down, and won’t be the last.
“The reason TransCanada needs to keep shutting down Keystone,” the director of the National Wildlife Federation contended in a statement, “is because pipelines are inherently dangerous.”
Last January, Obama signed a bill that commissioned several new studies to evaluate some of these proposed safety measures, although his decision on extending the Keystone pipeline may come long before those studies are completed.
As always in Maryland citizens have to fight to be heard and have almost no ability to stop these corporate projects because Maryland Assembly and governor's are always the most global corporate. As this article shows-----in Maryland little is being done to assure this pipeline is laid properly -----nothing is done to protect environment-----and we already know ABSOLUTELY NO OVERSIGHT AND ACCOUNTABILITY WILL BE REQUIRED.
Remember, if it was not for exporting natural gas overseas for higher prices we would not even be thinking of pipelines because we can transport just fine on railroad and by truck what communities need. THIS IS ONLY BEING DONE TO MOVE NATURAL GAS TO EXPORT TERMINALS as in Cove Point, Maryland. You can bet they are already considering other export locations as in the Port of Baltimore. As eminent domain is being used to take real estate for all these pipelines-----and as we know global corporations will be owning these networks-------American citizens and communities will have NO SAY IN WHAT LAND IS TAKEN OR HOW ALL THIS OPERATES.
This is a huge issue folks and we need social Democrats in office that are going to stop this rapid motion all fueled by global corporate profit. We can address energy concerns with social Democrats taking social benefit as the driver of these policies.
DO YOU HEAR ANY POLITICIANS TALKING ABOUT THIS IN THESE PRIMARY ELECTIONS? IF NOT, THEY ARE NOT A SOCIAL DEMOCRAT----THEY ARE A GLOBAL CORPORATE POL.
Judge Halts Work On Maryland Pipeline Due To Environmental Concerns
by Katie Valentine May 7, 2015 3:03pm Climate Progress
Construction on a natural gas pipeline set to run through Maryland has been halted after a judge found that the state hadn’t done enough to protect the environment and hadn’t given residents enough of a chance to weigh in on the project.
Baltimore County Circuit Court Judge Judge Justin J. King ruled last week that the Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE) must go back and revise the permit it issued for the 21-mile pipeline, which is being constructed by Columbia Pipeline Group and is slated to run through Baltimore and Harford counties. According to the judge’s ruling, the permit’s water safety requirements were too general, “rendering it impossible for this court to determine whether the permit complies with state and federal water quality regulations.”
In addition, King wrote, the permit didn’t allow enough time for public input, and there wasn’t enough evidence that Maryland took a close enough look at how the project would affect historic sites. Construction on the pipeline, which is about halfway complete, has been temporarily halted. It will only resume after the state revisits the permit or, in the case of an appeal, if the ruling is overturned.
Environmentalists in Maryland, who have been warning of the danger the pipeline poses to the state’s waterways, applauded the judge’s move. The pipeline, as it’s permitted, would cross over 70 streams. Thirty-nine of those streams feed into the Loch Raven Reservoir, which provides water to most of Baltimore County, including the city of Baltimore.
Local environmental group Gunpowder Riverkeeper and three individuals filed for judicial review of the project, and these filings were consolidated into the case heard by Judge King.
King’s ruling “will eventually have MDE and Columbia go back through and make this permit more protective of the waterway resources we’re advocating for,” Theaux M. Le Gardeur, head of Gunpowder Riverkeeper, told the Baltimore Sun. “I can’t really tell folks where the pipeline should go, but if they do put it in, they should put it in in the right way.”
MDE is still reviewing the case and figuring out how it will proceed, a spokesman told the Baltimore Sun. The state agency could appeal the case if it doesn’t choose to revisit the pipeline’s permit.
In general, natural gas pipelines have fewer significant onshore accidents than pipelines carrying substances like crude oil and jet fuel, according to the Pipeline Safety Trust. However, that doesn’t mean they never leak: this week, a leak was reported at a TransCanada natural gas pipeline in Alberta, Canada.
And even if they don’t spill as frequently, natural gas pipelines are more likely to have serious incidents — ones resulting in death or hospitalization — than other pipelines. Many of these accidents come in the form of explosions: last February, a natural gas pipeline blast in Kentucky leveled homes and caused multiple fires, and last January, a TransCanada natural gas pipeline explosion shut off gas supplies for thousands of residents in Manitoba, Canada.
Still, there are multiple natural gas pipelines that have either been proposed or are already in the works around the country. The Atlantic Coast Pipeline, a natural gas line that would run through Virginia, West Virginia, and North Carolina, has drawn considerable opposition in the states it would impact — ten people were arrested in February protesting the pipeline. The Northeast Energy Direct pipeline, which would carry natural gas from Pennsylvania to Massachusetts, has also garnered opposition.