Point/Counterpoint
About the Proposed New Pipeline in Columbia County
June 7, 2014
Background: The Tennessee Gas Pipeline (“TGP”) Northeast Expansion is a
high-pressure natural gas pipeline planned by the Tennessee Gas Pipeline
Company, L.L.C., a subsidiary of Kinder Morgan Energy Partners, L.P., to run
from Wright, NY (just west of Albany) through part of New York State - including
Columbia County - and through Massachusetts, ending in Dracut, MA, just north
of Boston. According to the company’s memo, intended customers are local
distribution companies, electric generators, industrial end users and developers
of liquefied natural gas projects in New England and Atlantic Canada.
Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company plans to send gas often referred to as "shale
gas" or "fracked gas" through this pipeline. This gas is a natural gas obtained
through hydraulic fracturing, called fracking, of shale. Hydraulic fracturing is a
gas and oil extraction process which requires drilling many thousands of feet
down into shale rock, then drilling laterally for thousands of feet and pumping in a
mixture of water, mud and chemicals at a high pressure to break the shale apart,
freeing up oil and gas for extraction. Over 600 chemicals are used in the process.
Despite a history that can be traced back to the 1940s, hydraulic fracturing had
not been utilized on a massive scale until 2003, when energy companies began
actively expanding natural gas exploration with a focus on shale formations in
Texas, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Wyoming, Utah and Maryland. Controversy
over the use of fracking technology, as well as over delivery methods, has
increased with the growth of the industry.
The following represents commonly made statements favoring the natural gas
industry (in blue type) and responses by groups with concerns about fracking.
Coal-fired plants generate half of U.S. electricity and this accounts for one-third
of all greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from
shale gas are much less than those from coal, usually about half the GHG
emissions of coal, thereby making it a cleaner source of energy.
Natural gas is not clean energy.
 While natural gas produces far less carbon when burned, the methane
gas that is currently leaked in drilling, transmission and distribution is a far
more powerful greenhouse gas and negates any gains over burning oil or
coal.
 Methane emissions along natural gas transmission routes (i.e., pipelines)
June 3, 2014
are 25-75% higher than original EPA estimates, particularly at compressor
stations, which are built every 40 to 60 miles along the pipelines. Industrywide the loss in transmission is about 8 to 12%. (The company is paid for
the gas that enters the pipeline and therefore has little incentive to prevent
leaks.)
It is safe to transport fracked gas through pipelines.
 Construction of a natural gas pipeline requires clearing, excavation and
sometimes blasting, in wild and ecologically sensitive areas, as well as in
neighborhoods along the way.
 Fracked gas needs to travel at high pressure, increasing the likelihood of
leaks, ruptures and/or explosions.
 Leaks present a problem. The gas industry's bad track record for safety,
Kinder Morgan in particular, does not bode well for the health and safety
of the people in Columbia County. Leaks are frequent, and they can
happen even in underground and underwater sections of the buried
pipeline. Natural gas has no odor and is only given an odorant in more
populated areas. This means that leakages can go undetected for
indefinite periods, accumulating and causing risks to the environment and
humans.
 Explosions of a pipeline this size and at this high pressure, even with
shut-off’s, are catastrophic and the fires are fed by many miles worth of
fuel between shut-off stations, leading to prolonged, extremely high
temperature burns.
 Accidents involving natural gas transmission lines to date number over
990 with 137 injuries and 34 fatalities since 2003.
The transporting of fracked natural gas through pipelines does not present risks
to human health and the environment.
 Off gassing from compressor stations presents a health risk. Compressor
stations are needed every 40-60 miles along the pipeline to move the gas.
These are usually large facilities, several acres each, with multiple
compressor engines, and large exhaust fans that have been proven in air
testing to off-gas dangerous chemicals
 Although TGC will not reveal all of the more than 600 chemicals used in
fracking, saying that it is proprietary information, air samples at
compressor stations (placed every 40-60 miles along pipelines) include:
benzene, dimethyldisulfide, ethyl-methylethyl disulfide, trimethyl benzene,
diethyl benzene, tetramethyl benzene, carbon disulfide, nephthalenes,
June 3, 2014
methyl pyridine, carbonyl sulfide, and toluene among others.
 Known chemicals used in the fracking process that are harmful to humans
include: EDCs (endocrine disrupting chemicals), known carcinogens,
neurotoxins, VOCs (volatile organic compounds) and surfactants (which
dissolve cell walls to allow cell permeability in oils, including those in
plants, animals and people).
 Since TGC will not reveal the chemicals it uses in fracking, it is impossible
to conclusively determine all of the short and long term effects on humans
and the environment.
 Gas companies are exempt from legislated regulations that are designed
to protect health and the environment. The 2005 Energy Bill contains a
measure, nicknamed “The Halliburton Loophole”, which exempts the gas
and oil industries from the Safe Water Drinking Act, Clean Air Act, Clean
Water Act, CERCLA / Superfund Act, and about a dozen more federal
regulations. There would be no need for exemptions such as these if
fracked natural gas and its transportation did not present health and safety
risks to humans, animals and the environment.
Gas has to travel to where it is needed and pipelines are safer than other modes
of fuel transportation, both for the public and the environment.
 The natural gas industry knows that transporting via other modes, i.e., rail
or truck, is impractical. Discouraging transportation through pipelines may
motivate exploration by gas companies into alternative energy resources,
which are safer and more sustainable.
 By supporting natural gas transmission through pipelines we are
condoning the continuation of the use of a non-renewable, unsustainable
energy source and are encouraging fracking – a technology that has been
shown to compromise the environment and human health. The reports of
illness, contamination of underground water sources, destruction of
communities, loss of property value, and the desecration of the beauty of
the natural environment in areas where fracking has been allowed, point
strongly to the need to replace fracked natural gas with safer energy
sources.
Tennessee Gas Pipeline transports fuel mostly for electricity generation for the
Boston area - how else are they supposed to meet their electricity needs?
 Massachusetts does not need this pipeline. This pipeline is being touted
as filling in a “shortfall” in fuel needed for electricity generation. The
“shortfall” in energy has only occurred during very cold snaps when more
of the current gas supply is used for heating instead of electric generation.
June 3, 2014
This occasional “shortfall” can be cut by 1/3 just by fixing the leaks in the
current gas infrastructure in Massachusetts. The remaining 2/3 can easily
be made up by expanding current energy efficiency programs like
MassSave.
 Caps on clean energy need to be removed. A further boost to fill in the
occasional “shortfall” in the grid could be achieved by removing the cap on
the amount of independently generated clean energy (small-scale wind
and solar) that can be sold back to the grid. These are systems that are
already in place and would allow more power into the grid without any
additional infrastructure investments needed.
 Gas is also intended for export. The pipeline being proposed brings in
many times more gas than would be needed to fill in the “shortfall,” even if
it was a constant need. According to Kinder Morgan’s own memo, this
extra capacity is slated to go toward increased gas use along newly
proposed lateral distribution lines, which works against the state’s own
greenhouse gas emissions goals, and for export to the Canadian
Maritimes, which does not benefit the people of Massachusetts or the
country and drives up the price of gas, negating any claims that the project
will provide cheaper energy.
Currently, Canaan has three natural gas pipelines running along the same
pathway. I have not heard of any negative impact on town residents from them.
 The original pipeline was installed through Columbia County in the 1950’s
before fracking became a regular practice. Landowners who agreed to this
pipeline were not aware of the risks that future technologies could present.
Now that it is known that fracked (shale) gas is flowing through the
pipelines, the risks have increased.
 Because we have not heard of negative impacts caused by the
transporting of natural gas through pipelines in Columbia County, it is not
safe to assume that there have been none.
I have heard that the pipeline could bring economic benefit to Columbia County
residents.
 A one time payment is generally made to the land owners abutting the
pipeline for an easement onto their land, but the easement goes with the
deed to future owners with no additional payments. The homeowner
continues to pay taxes on this property.
 Having a pipeline easement on your property may make it more difficult to
obtain a mortgage and to get insurance. In addition, it has been shown
that real estate values decrease on properties that abut pipelines.
June 3, 2014
 The only possible economic benefit would be for a very few short-term
jobs during the pipeline's construction, but here is no guarantee those jobs
would be local.
 If there are accidents or problems along the pipeline, our fire stations and
emergency responders might be called into action, which could stretch our
capacities.
 By agreement between ISO New England, NESCOE and all six Governors
of New England, the pipeline is to be funded by a new tariff on electric
utility ratepayers. This is standard business practice nationwide for Kinder
Morgan. We are waiting to see if this will be so in NYS as well. Having
electric ratepayers fund the pipeline through a tariff is unfair. The pipeline
is a private venture, yet the general public in New England is expected to
foot the bill and bear the health, safety and environmental risks, while
Kinder Morgan and Tennessee Gas Pipeline stockholders reap the
benefits.
 The U.S. Tax Code allows energy companies such as Kinder Morgan to
avoid most or all corporate taxes.
 The track of this proposed pipeline cuts through over 900 personal
properties, farms, watersheds, major rivers and protected wetlands and
forests, leaving all of them to deal with the presence of a toxic mix of
chemicals for the decades it is in use and the decaying infrastructure for
decades after it is no longer in use. There could be additional costs to
local governments to cover necessary increases to environmental and
safety monitoring, and appropriate emergency disaster plans in case of
catastrophic rupture or explosion.
 The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission brochure about gas facilities
and pipelines is unclear about what happens to the pipelines after the
Company abandons them.
Natural gas produced through fracking in the United States reduces our reliance
on foreign fuel, resulting in more affordable energy for American businesses and
families.
 It cannot be predicted what the price of gas will be in the future, but as gas
becomes harder to extract and gets shipped to foreign markets, there will
be less available here and prices are likely to rise.
 New York State's electric generation is already approximately 1/2 natural
gas. Increasing this percentage makes us even more vulnerable to swings
June 3, 2014
in fuel prices.
 Natural gas is a finite resource and not a sound investment in our future.
It is a short-term measure, laced with risks, to address a long-term need.
 Energy alternatives, such as solar and wind, are renewable. Rather than
continue fracking for natural gas, a more efficient and safer approach is to
expand energy efficiency programs, increase incentives for decentralized
roof-top wind and solar generation, develop more efficient electric
transmission lines, and create more effective energy storage from big wind
and solar generation installations. State and ratepayer monies would be
better spent by furthering the development and use of such resources.
 The New York State Energy Research and Development Authority
(NYSERDA- http://www.nyserda.ny.gov/) is a one such resource that can
be better utilized to help homeowners reduce their energy costs in New
York State.
For more information: https://www.facebook.com/stopnyfrackedgaspipeline
Contact: raconnors@yahoo.com
518-781-4686
June 3, 2014