A Case of Pipeline and Propane Phobia

Peter Mantius, a reporter for “DC Bureau” has recently zeroed in on two regional Inergy Midstream projects  in articles that can be read here and here.  The vitriol that pervades these pieces surprised us and is hard to ignore.  We couldn’t help wondering about the agenda of the blog, funded by a group called the Public Education Center (PEC).  We checked out PEC and what we found was enlightening.  Indeed, it appears this is a case of wild-eyed pipeline and propane phobia fired up by some old acquaintances.  Due to some of the egregious claims made in these articles it is necessary to first examine the facts and some background on what exactly the project is and is not before we delve into this larger discussion.

The Marc-1 Pipeline

The Marc-1 Pipeline is a proposed 39 mile pipeline that will be constructed through Bradford, Sullivan and 1 mile of Lycoming Counties in Pennsylvania.  We reported on the project previously here and here.  Some key facts about the project are listed below:

Fact: Pipeline construction will create 600 high-paying jobs immediately – many of them lasting up to a year. Eight to 10 permanent jobs will also result at two compressor stations. The price tag will approach $300 million, two-thirds of which will stay in Pennsylvania.

Fact: The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) environmental assessment was thorough, involved substantial community input, and produced a comprehensive 300-page report on all potential environmental issues associated with this project.

Fact: FERC has sited over 16,000 miles of major interstate pipeline in the last ten years at a cost over $47 billion dollars.

Fact: There are over 300,000 miles of natural gas pipeline in the United States.

Fact: Pipeline construction will be specially timed to minimize any negative impact on migratory birds.

Fact: High tech drilling techniques will be employed in sensitive environmental areas avoiding the need to dig a trench.

Fact: Central New York Oil and Gas, LLC. (CNYOG) has worked with U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, PA Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, PA Department of Environmental Protection, PA Fish and Boat Commission, PA Game Commission, PA State Historic Preservation Office, Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission, Bradford County Conservation District, Lycoming County Conservation District, and the Sullivan County Conservation District to ensure all local, state and federal standards were met or exceeded in planning the project.

How are Pipelines Regulated?

With that background in mind it is also important to cover the extensive regulatory system in place for pipeline construction and operation. All aspects of pipelines including new construction, pricing power, safety, environmental impacts, and many other aspects of operation are all highly regulated by multiple agencies at the state and federal level.  Given the extensive focus on federal regulations in Mantius’s writings we will place primary focus here.

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
According to the Interstate Natural Gas Association of America, FERC regulates many aspects of interstate gas transmission pipeline operations, including approval, permitting and siting for new pipeline facilities as well as transmission rates pipelines are permitted to charge for interstate shipments.

The Natural Gas Act of 1938 (P.L. 75-688) empowers FERC with plenary authority to conduct the review of a proposed interstate natural gas pipeline, coordinate environmental and land use permitting with other federal and state agencies, and determine if a proposed pipeline meets the “public convenience and necessity.”  As part of approving a pipeline application, FERC can specify the conditions under which the pipeline can be constructed, including the route used.

Once an interstate natural gas pipeline is built, FERC has the authority to ensure that pipeline rates are “just and reasonable.”  These rates include operating and maintenance expenses and an allowed return on investment set as a percentage of the capital invested in facilities used to serve customers.  Pipelines must go through a lengthy public process whenever they request rate increases.  FERC sets rates on a pipeline-by-pipeline basis, and approves what constitutes a maximum allowable rate for each pipeline.  Pipeline customers can, and often do, demand discounts from these maximum rates, with the net outcome being that many pipeline customers pay less than the maximum rate.

Laws Governing Pipeline Construction and Regulation
Several federal laws impact the construction and operation of interstate natural gas pipelines.  These include:

These are just a sample of statutes dictating the federal government’s role in pipeline regulation.  There are many more, however it seems neither PEC nor Mantius are much impressed.

DC Bureau- Washington Front for Ithaca Agenda

 Now that you have the facts on the Marc-1 project and the extensive body of work that composes pipeline safety and regulation let’s take a closer look at DC Bureau and their parent PEC.  If you go to DC Bureau’s website you find that it’s well done.  Want to know where to contact them? Try the National Press Club address they list.  All of this leads one to assume a sense of credibility about the organization. However, when one digs deeper they find a bit of a different story.

PEC is registered as a 501(c)(3) non-profit corporation funded, in part, by the Park Foundation (see page 42 of attachments), which accounted for 20% of its revenues in 2009.  The Park Foundation as many of our readers know is one of the main financiers of anti-natural gas activities and rhetoric in the nation.  Ironically, this hasn’t stopped PEC from investing in two oil and gas companies (see page 19).

But we digress; Park also funds Earth Justice (see page 17 of the Park 990 return attachments), Josh Fox, CELDF, CEDC, NRDC and virtually every other group opposing natural gas development.  The ties don’t end there. Interestingly, as is noticeable in their tax filings, Wade Green and Robert Leavitt serve on the board of PEC.  Turns out they not only serve on PEC’s board but also have strong ties to the Rockefeller family.  The same Rockefeller’s that are linked to NRDC, the Catskill Mountainkeeper, the Delaware Riverkeeper, et al.  So, we can see that DC Bureau has ties to some of the wealthiest natural gas detractors, or as some would say NIMBYs, out there. Doubtful they will ever sing the praises of anything related to natural gas or oil (except maybe when their stocks over perform the market).

 

The Inside Job

Mantius attempts, with his two articles, to discredit Inergy and the Marc-1 pipeline project. He does so in two ways.  First, he paints a scenario of deep conspiracy among private companies and government officials as well as referencing a letter  from an official at Region 3 of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency on the Marc 1 project.  We addressed this letter and the unholy alliance between EPA Region 3 and Earth Justice here.  For the purposes of this post we’ll just say there are many similarities between the two efforts and coordination appears to be present throughout the entire public comment process.  For a more thorough report follow the previous link.

Mantius also cites a letter sent to FERC by Representative Richard Mirabito.  We discussed that previously here.  One interesting fact Mantius doesn’t cover is that 20 of the signers were from non-Marcellus counties, including the now infamous Representative Sturla.  Many remaining signers were from fringe counties where Marcellus Shale may or may not be developed.  Others were from the Southwestern part of the state where their gas would be in competition with natural gas from the Northern Tier.  Regardless, none of the signers came from districts where the proposed line would run – not one.

But quickly after highlighting one letter, Mantius trashes another.  The difference is one supports Marc-1 construction while the other attempts to block Marc-1. Mantius asserts the former is driven by corruption and the latter is in the public interest. In fact, much of his writing is a carefully woven narrative that would have the reader believe that a politician wanting to ensure a project that will bring  jobs and economic revenue and activity to their constituents is somehow inherently evil.  It is not, especially when the area has a significant experience with the industry in question, an experience that has been hallmarked by decades of success with minimal impacts to citizens and the environment.

In his articles, Mantius doesn’t cite anyone from Inergy but he does cite John Trallo, a member of the Responsible Drilling Alliance and the farcical Citizen’s Marcellus Shale Advisory Commission.  This group has been urging hearings on a previously existing compressor station that could be used for the Marc-1 but currently has no use with the project according to plans.  Trallo recently sent out an e-mail blast that not only falsely links the Barto compressor station to the MARC-1 pipeline, but also tries to make the Marc-1 a referendum on natural gas development by confusing the pipeline corridor with the “development corridor”.  He  also alleges the compressor station “will emit literally tons of toxic air-born chemicals annually into the air ” causing “chronic nose bleeds, migraine headaches, sore throat, respiratory infections, difficulty breathing, loss of smell/taste, and permanent nerve damage” as well as “increased risk of cancer, leukemia, COPD, emphysema, and chronic fatigue syndrome” and “low frequency noise 24/7, the constant venting/flaring of ‘dirty’ methane, the loss of property value, and the increased risk of fire and/or explosions.”

We know from experience Mr. Trallo is not an expert in natural gas engineering.  If he were he would know flaring doesn’t occur at compressor stations.  That is not part of his knowledge, or interest, though.  As a retired guitar player he is only interested in one thing, stopping natural gas development at all costs.  At best, this source would be questionable to include in an “objective” investigative journalistic piece.  Given PEC’s source of funds however, we are not surprised.

How did Mantius find Trallo? Trallo is a well known and outspoken detractor of the Marc-1 project who resides in one of the counties it will cross.  There aren’t too many sources like that to choose from as Trallo himself has had to ask for outside support in resisting Marc-1 as Sullivan County overwhelmingly supports its advance.  It probably helped that Trallo was one of very few local signatory to the 22,000 form letters sent to FERC from individuals opposing the project –most of whom were from out of state, some of whom were from other countries.

In his second article Mantius addresses recent flooding and speculates on the impact this could have on the proposed pipeline.  For those of you not familiar with regulations, pipelines not only have to meet strict Department of Transportation standards, but when they cross a stream, river or wetland, they are also subject to Army Corps of Engineers regulations and review.  Mantius doesn’t mention any of this and instead uses a picture of an exposed pipe along a flooded road to exemplify pipeline risks.  There is only one problem.  That picture is not in any way representative of what is being proposed.

The pipeline Mantius shows runs parallel to the Susquehanna River above the water line where flooding could have an impact.  The Marc-1 is being required to cross underneath rivers, streams, and wetlands using special equipment to minimize impacts.  The difference is as clear as night and day.  It would be as if someone told you flying was not safe because Cessna’s are prone to crash.  It’s an argument based on pure demagoguery.   Funded, mind you, by the same folks funding it everywhere else – the Ithaca based Park Foundation. It won’t cease anytime soon, they had net assets of $245 million to spend as of December 31, 2009.

DC Bureau also attacks Inergy’s proposed Finger Lakes LPG Storage Facility.  We have covered this one extensively with stories here, here, here, here and here. Please take a few moments to look back at these writings to see the facts on this project.  You will find it is nothing more than a continuation of a storage facility, albeit larger in size, that has been historically proven to be a safe practice in Watkins Glen, NY where it is proposed.  Why is it an issue for the anti Marcellus Shale forces?  One only has to look 20 miles to the east, to Ithaca, where the Park Foundation is headquartered, to know the answer.  The LPG facility, along with the Marc-1 and all the other projects PEC, the CELDF, CEDC, the NRDC and other Park minions attack, are simply targets of opportunity to keep natural gas development out of the Park Foundation’s backyard.

So what do we have here?  It’s a reasonable question to ask.  We have the Park Foundation funding the Earth Justice campaign to stop the Marc-1.  We also have that  same foundation funding PEC and Mantius to report on the project in a negative light to gin up further opposition.  Without investigation one would be led to believe these were unrelated activities.  In actuality they are two shots fired from the same gun.

PEC is just another part of the Park Foundation funded anti-gas broadside, another example of manufactured phobia to stop development of an energy source they don’t agree with regardless of what the facts, science, data, experience and a majority of federal and state regulators have to say.  Is the Park Foundation trying to distort the record, change the narrative and manipulate data and impressions to fit their agenda and keep natural gas development out of their backyard?  You decide.

 

Comments

  1. Congrats–You’ve done yor research well! And here’s someting I can add from personal experience:

    I found myself standing next to Peter Mantius after the ‘notably-rowdy’ Hector Town Hall meeting with Tom Reed and Christopher Friend on August 27th. I congratulated him on his move up to the ‘big-time’ at DC Bureau. I then asked him “What is the real power behind that group, the NRDC?” He told me that the Park Foundation was a major contributor, and that it was connected with Ithaca College, and had the purpose of ‘promoting journalism’.

    I did a little research myself (far less than you did!) and got a similar impression: That it may have started back in history with non-political ‘promoting journalism excellence’ goals, but has become another trust-fund anti-capitalism “Mother-Earth Protection-Racket” like many others.

    Let me mention that August 27th Hector Town Hall Meeting that was a prelude to the nastiness of the Sept 27th Public Hearing in Watkins Glen. The place was filled predominantly with Gas Free Seneca anti-fracking & anti-LPG-Storage faithful (probably 50 out of 70) wearing ‘No-Frack’ shirts and packing ‘No-LPG’ signs. Various people yelled at and interrupted Reed’s presentation, then rudely charged Reed as being “a millionaire himself and in the pockets of the big-business energy companies.” Another was an outright socialist/communist who declared “That gas belongs to ALL of us, not just the land-owners!”

    It was another instance that convinced me: There is something about the water at Ithaca that affects those who drink it — they become liberal elitist socialists, with radical-activism against anything ‘big business’ as their hobby/cause! Watkins Glen long-term residents peg the same group of what they call ‘East-Siders’ as also being previously against Wal-Mart’s entry there, and before that a proposed GE Factory.

    The majority of Watkins Glen residents, and the ‘West-Siders’, are down-to-earth types, are culturally-different, and are glad for it!

    It is interesting how the ‘East-Siders’ have focused on LPG-Storage as a supposed imminent-threat to all area humans, trees, and Seneca Lake’s water. They argue that the little LPG-facility is a mortal-threat to ‘tourism’ and ‘all the wineries and vineyards’.

    Yet, it is well-documented by Prof. Halfman et al that the agricultural wastes, pesticides, and those multitudinous tourists, are the ACTUAL threats to Seneca Lake’s water! The human and animal-wastes impact alone threatens eventual-eutrophication in perhaps as short as 20 years. And the lakeside-residents, and those downstream, and around Cayuga Lake, are drinking those nasty, poisonous pesticides that protect the grapes (but wash-off and run downhill!).

    So, to protect the lake, we need to chase-away the tourists, and eliminate vinyards in the watershed. If the LPG-Storage will really chase-away tourists and reduce the summer tourist-traffic-jams in Watkins Glen, then I’m all for it!

    But….the tourism-growth has occurred concurrently while both LPG-storage (since 1964), and then natural gas storage (since 1994) were conducted in that same local-area. So connecting a negative cause-effect there is REALLY a stretch! The historical-evidence of 47 years contradicts the Gas Free Seneca argument; History indicates that hydrocarbon-storage will instead promote even-MORE tourism-growth!

    That is what MY crystal-ball says….

    • Tom says:

      You are so correct. There is no reason agriculture, tourism and LPG storage cannot co-exist peacefully, as they have for many years!

  2. EID: “The Marc-1 Pipeline is a proposed 39 mile pipeline that will be constructed through Bradford, Sullivan and 1 mile of Lycoming Counties in Pennsylvania.”

    FACT: It will also be the enabler for hundreds of unregulated gathering pipelines. It is not neccessary, as they are already transporting Marcellus gas via the transco and the Tennessee pipelines. It is in fact, nothing more than an ‘economic convenience’ for the gas industry that will enable them to drill more wells along to the MARC-1 thus cutting their transportation costs. That’s according to Brian Driscoll, the economic development manager of the Central Bradford Progress Authority.

    “Right now, there is a lot of drilling along existing transmission lines, primarily the Tennessee Gas Line,” Driscoll said. Likewise, the construction of the MARC I line is expected to create a “development corridor” of gas wells along the MARC I line, he said.

    (source: The Daily Review)By James, The Daily Review, Towanda, Pa.
    http://www.istockanalyst.com/article/viewiStockNews/articleid/3522445

    FACT: the MARC-1 will involve the clear cutting of 600+ acres of forest and agriculture land, the removal of approx. 220,00+/- trees, make 122 water-crossings, subject 108 private properties to siezure via eminent domain, and that does NOT take into consideration the gathering pipeline infrastructure, compressor stations, well pads, access roads it would pave the way for. With the recent flooding that has devastated much of Bradford, Sullivan, and Lycoming Counties, the erosion and storm run-off this would cause is a MAJOR concern.

    EID: Doesn’t mention, or address any of these other impact issues. Instead, they pound the economic drum as if it were all that matters.

    EID: “Trallo himself has had to ask for outside support in resisting Marc-1 as Sullivan County overwhelmingly supports its advance.”

    FACT: That’s hardly true. The majority of the county is divided into three fairly even factions. Those who oppose, those who cautiously have reservations, and those who feel powerless against the industry and hope things go better than they have in Bradford County. There is also a small percentage who are in favor of it, but that is shrinking away. That includes some local authorities.

    FACT: Never before has an application of this nature been applied for in a ‘greenfield region’ without a comprehensive Environmental Impact Study being completed prior to the application.

    EID: Another ‘fact’ overlooked.

    FACT: The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [FERC] is NOT a government agency. They are a private agency contracted by the federal government, and in the past has acted like an arm of the oil & gas industry.

    FACT: Nicole Jacobs of EID has attended forums on the MARC-1, as well as public hearings held accross the state by the Citizen’s Marcellus Shale Commission. She could have testified on behalf of the industry, but didn’t. I have also publicly invited Ms. Jacobs and Tom Shepstone to publicly debate the issues involving natural gas development and pipeline infrastructure, but they have ignored those invitations. Matter of fact… EID operatives are almost always present at Marcellus forums, but NEVER speak up or engage anyone. Instead, they take statements out of context and pontificate on this web site.

    FACT: I am “a member of the Responsible Drilling Alliance and the Citizen’s Marcellus Shale Advisory Commission”, and proudly so. However, the CMSC is not ‘farcical’. That would imply that it is not having an impact… but it is. Unlike the Gov. MS Commission, it is bi-partisan, it allows individuals from varied backgrounds and interests to participate, and encourages public comment and involvement. Unlike the Gov’s Commission, it will include the testimony and concerns of the people who will be largely impacted by this development, and even those who are for it. It’s sole objection is to give the citizens of PA a voice.

    FALSE: I’m “a retired guitar player he is only interested in one thing, stopping natural gas development at all costs.”

    FACT: I’m not retired from anything, and I do not object to natrual gas development as long as it is done safely, responsibly, and with transparency and respect for private property rights. If it can be done accordingly, then let the industry follow the precautionary principle and demonstrate it.

    TOM (Shepstone?): There is no reason agriculture, tourism and LPG storage cannot co-exist peacefully, as they have for many years!

    JT: Give me some examples of where that is happening. It’s not in other states that I’ve visited.

    FYI: I am still quite active in performing, session work, and as a music teacher with teaching certificates in PA & NJ. Now, I am not involved in funding for any activist group or organization. Unlike EID, I’m not paid, nor do I recieve any compensation for my efforts. I do what I do on my own dime and my own time.

    • Tom says:

      John,

      One of the things I learned long ago from doing expert witness testimony is that one often gets the best opportunities to make points during the cross-examination. Accordingly, I’m pleased to respond to your points:

      1. You argue the Marc-1 will create a natural gas development corridor and isn’t necessary because other lines already exist. You assume, incorrectly, that wells follow pipelines but wells go where the gas is and gathering lines are used to connect to pipelines. The alternative to the Marc-1 pipeline is a larger system of unregulated gathering lines, a point that seems to escape you in your blind opposition to all natural gas development.

      2. You make a big deal about the land disturbance involved with the Marc-1 but provide no context, as if the 600 acres of land involved were going to be permanently disturbed and represented a large amount of land when it actually amounts to just 15 acres per mile. You might be interested to know Sullivan County’s forest cover has increased from 239,470 acres in 2004 to 253,977 acres in 2010, according to the U.S. Forest Service. Run a report and check it for yourself. Sullivan County added an average of over 2,400 acres of forest land per year over the last year through regeneration, some four times what the Marc-1 would involve over its entire length across multiple counties.

      3. Your raise non-existent flooding and eminent domain issues, as if merely asserting them was enough, but, as we noted in our story, all lines will be buried underneath streams and, of course, Pennsylvania has some of the strictest stormwater rules in the nation. As for eminent domain, you know this will, if used at all, be limited to those facilities regulated by FERC (see page 119 of the Environmental Assessment). Suggesting anything more is pure demagoguery.

      4. You suggest we don’t address any of the impact issues and “pound the economic drum as if it were all that matters.” No, John, we understand there is a 300-page Environmental Assessment performed by FERC that you choose to ignore. Why, given the comprehensive study already done on the impacts, do you still want to deny others the economic benefits? That is the question.

      5. You say “the majority of the county is divided into three fairly even factions” and “there is also a small percentage who are in favor of it, but that is shrinking away.” Really, John? Well, where are they? They certainly haven’t showed up at meetings and the EarthJustice letter campaign generated 37 local responses out of 22,000. That’s 0.17% or 17 people per thousand. It sure doesn’t sound evenly divided to me.

      6. You say “never before has an application of this nature been applied for in a ‘greenfield region’ without a comprehensive Environmental Impact Study being completed prior to the application.” Obviously, you’ve not read the Environment Assessment, which is not only 300 pages in length but also covers every imaginable impact. You might want to read page 21. “Many of the issues raised by commenters are about development of the Marcellus Shale natural gas reserves and general opposition to the proposal. The Project does not propose development of natural gas. Further, opposition to a proposal does not of itself render an action controversial for NEPA purposes.” What this means, John, is that further study is not mandated simply because you say so.

      7. You say “the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission is NOT a government agency” but “a private agency contracted by the federal government …” One hardly knows where to begin with this one, John. Do you really believe “independent agency” means private? Or, are you exaggerating again? I suggest you read this and take note the Commissioners are appointed by the President and subject to Senate confirmation. Let’s get real!

      8. You complain our Nicole Jacobs has not testified on behalf of the industry. Well, John, her job is to help others and report, but on occasion she has spoken and you’ll be pleased to know she’s done quite well indeed. Check it out here. You also say you have “invited Ms. Jacobs and Tom Shepstone to publicly debate the issues involving natural gas development and pipeline infrastructure, but they have ignored those invitations.” Oh, really? I can assure you we’ll be pleased to debate you anytime. Get a reasonably responsible neutral party to moderate and we’ll be there.

      9. You say the Citizens Marcellus Shale Commission is not ‘farcical’ and that “it’s sole objection is to give the citizens of PA a voice.” I think you made a Freudian slip there, John. You and the CMSC are about one thing and that is, indeed, “objection” – objection to everything that doesn’t match your own little perfect vision of the world. You meant to say “objective” I’m sure, but that little mistake reveals a lot.

      10. You also complain about us saying as “a retired guitar player he is only interested in one thing, stopping natural gas development at all costs” suggesting you’re “not retired from anything” and are “still quite active in performing, session work, and as a music teacher.” Fine, then, take your complaint to your buddy Peter Mantius because that’s where that fact came from. I guess Mantius can’t be trusted with the facts. You also say you “do not object to natural gas development as long as it is done safely, responsibly, and with transparency and respect for private property rights. If it can be done accordingly, then let the industry follow the precautionary principle and demonstrate it.” We agree and the industry has demonstrated it repeatedly, John. You just don’t want to believe it, preferring your own set of facts.

      11. Finally you challenge me and ask for some examples of places where agriculture, tourism and LPG storage co-exist peacefully.” I am pleased to oblige and the answer is Watkins Glen, as we noted in our story and here. There’s nothing new under the sun here, John. You just need to listen better and read more carefully.

      • SideShowBob says:

        Splendid….and hilarious…..Trallo to debate Tom and Nicole….JT, you’re woefully outgunned, but you could provide the entertainment at the post debate social. Bring your axe and enthrall us with your chops as we mingle and sip tea…sure hope they’re significantly better than your logic and research.

  3. Les says:

    I think you are missing the point completely. If as much energy was put into fitting homes and businesses with reverse meter solar and wind installations there would be absolutely no reason to use increase the use of fossil fuels. For you to dismiss environmental concerns so lightly is disingenuous at best because the production of natural gas releases more pollution than any other fossil fuel industry. You also seem to be very uneducated about the dependance that each part of the environment has on the other. The only thing that you have accomplished with this piece of lies and hyperbole is to loose another supporter in your quest to destroy the clean air and water we need for life. Deception and half truths is not the way to win support for your cause.

    • Tom says:

      Actually, you miss the point (two points, in fact). First, there was a 300-page environmental assessment done of the project. You just don’t like the outcome. Secondly, you cannot just shut off fossil fuels. Preach about all you want but until you develop a practical alternative for replacing them in the short-run you have nothing. I might add that fossil fuels have powered a gigantic step forward for society as we know it. Pretending it isn’t true and we can just overnight is burying your head in the sand.

    • virtuallyme says:

      “If as much energy was put into fitting homes and businesses with reverse meter solar and wind installations there would be absolutely no reason to use increase the use of fossil fuels”

      Do YOU have ‘as much energy’ (re: CAPITAL) to do this? The point is this is PRIVATE capital doing what it chooses.
      This is still America!

      • virtuallyme says:

        perhaps the PARK Foundation and every other backer of the hypocritical anti gas movement
        should PUT THEIR MONEY WHERE THEIR MOUTH IS and back your vision of renewables.
        Then we would see which form of energy is REALLY sustainable!

  4. Fritz52confused says:

    John Trallo is an anti gas activist who drives a gas powered vehicle all over NYS and PA to protest the very product that got him to his forums. He use to tell people “I am on the fence when it comes to drilling gas, I need to learn more …. and then he would moderate for ANTI GASSERS at town meetings like in Sullivan Counties “LaPorte School nearly two years ago. A quick GOOGLE SEARCH revealed that he was lying about being on the fence as he was a listed member of NYRAD, and most other anti gas groups showing that he was not on the fence but part of the fence to stop safe drilling in PA & NY and a Google Earth search gave a clue as to why. John is a validated member of the 1/4 acre club where the havenots what to keep the haves from getting theirs

  5. John Trallo says:

    Tom, the figures for land use and water crossing came from Inergy/CNYOG’s own application to .FERC. They’re putting the pipeline where they want to drill the wells. That’s why they chose that path for the MARC-1. However CNYOG, in their statement to FERC, claims they have nothing to do with where the wells are drilled.

    And Fritz52… first of all, why don’t you use your real name? What are you hiding? I’m certainly not afriad to own my statements or stand by my position. Why are you?

    Second, you don’t know me well enough to call me a liar. Especially in such a cowardly way hiding your identity. Unlike yourself, I’m not hiding behind a screen name.

    And for your information, and anyone else who is interested, the Laporte forum was this on January 14, 2011. Which I moderated, but did not comment. Here’s the link: http://shaleshockmedia.org/pages/Cumulative-Effects-of-Gas-Drilling.html

  6. Victor furman says:

    I am tired of everyone who is against natural gas telling me I should go with wind or solar. I did infact check into these options when I built my new home and finacially wind and or solar were out of the question and still are. here is an article which recently appeared in writing .

    http://www.rationaloptimist.com/blog/gas-against-wind#.Tpobhh745n0.email

    Quoted from the article and agreed with:

    “To persist with a policy of pursuing subsidized renewable energy in the midst of a terrible recession, at a time when vast reserves of cheap low-carbon gas have suddenly become available is so perverse it borders on the insane. Nothing but bureaucratic inertia and vested interest can explain it.”

    I like this quote because it spews truth all over the forest floor!

  7. anotheronebitesthedust says:

    What has 1 head, 1600 arms, and a pen that is outta ink ???

    The nimby who got this petition to pass out….

    IN OTHER NEWS…… Kim Michels hands in another petition to a town board that was fully debunked by the town board…. in other words The signatures were not from the town…. see the towns response to a padded petition below

    http://townofcoventryny.com/pb/wp_b1c3161f/wp_b1c3161f.html

Speak Your Mind

*