I understand there are some geopolitical aspects to LNG. By exporting the gas to some of the eastern European countries, it removes there almost total reliance on NG from Russia and on more local coal sources. If we must burn carbon, I understand that NG is better than coal.
G From: Texascavers <texascavers-boun...@texascavers.com> On Behalf Of Bill Stephens Sent: Thursday, December 5, 2019 10:16 AM To: texascavers <texascavers@texascavers.com> Subject: Re: [Texascavers] Pipeline planned over cave systems in WV I always appreciate insights from both Andy and Mark and I too share concerns regarding the karst and the use of ED by both municipalities and corporate entities. The fact remains that this is a gas pipeline, not oil as stated. And rerouting around sensitive areas has and can be accomplished through cooperative avenues. Much of this gas would be sold into an expanding New York market for Natural Gas, but due to the Governors moratorium on pipelines, thousands of residents are being denied the opportunity to switch from heating oil, to cleaner, cheaper more efficient NG. Instead the gas must be re-routed to the south. Even if every MCFG over the lifetime of the pipeline is exported, the public benefits in a myriad of ways from the tens of thousands of jobs within the operations, drilling, associated service industry, pipeline construction and export facilities companies, and numerous regulatory entities. Beyond payroll taxes, the production taxes will positively impact every county and state with production, plus State and Federal income tax revenue. Large sums in royalty revenue to the mineral owners will inject money into local economies and result in multiple levels of taxes on these income streams. These revenues will provide huge shots in the arm to municipal governments for the building of new schools, clinics etc. As long as population increases there will be new infrastructure projects, power-lines, pipelines, roads, etc. The scare tactics of an exaggerating and deliberately divisive, pseudo news sight is not beneficial to constructive discussion and solutions. I am all in on saving the caves! Bill On Wednesday, December 4, 2019, 12:31:11 PM MST, grub...@centurytel.net<mailto:grub...@centurytel.net> <grub...@centurytel.net<mailto:grub...@centurytel.net>> wrote: Mark hit the nail on the head. private entities using power of emminent domain for personal gain. rubberstamped by permitting agencies. At least in Texas they are. Gas destined for export, this is not public benefit in any way. They dont bother to do good environmental studies or look at impact of routes. Recent court cases in Texas prove that they are lowballing the affected land owners in terms of compensation. While public entities are subjected to intense scrutiny any time they use ED not so for these private companies. They plan on running a 48" high pressure natural gas line a couple hundred yards from several schools near Kyle Anyone think thats the best place to put it ? ----- Original Message ----- From: "mminton" <mmin...@caver.net<mailto:mmin...@caver.net>> To: "texascavers" <texascavers@texascavers.com<mailto:texascavers@texascavers.com>> Cc: "New Mexico Cavers" <swrcav...@googlegroups.com<mailto:swrcav...@googlegroups.com>> Sent: Wednesday, December 4, 2019 1:10:52 PM Subject: Re: [Texascavers] Pipeline planned over cave systems in WV As you can imagine, this pipeline has caused enormous concern amongst cavers in the affected areas. Both the Atlantic Coast Pipeline and another one called the Mountain Valley Pipeline have used eminent domain for private gain, which has caused a huge outcry. None of the gas from either will be used in the states along the routes. Both run through karst areas, and there is so much karst along parts of the routes that it would be impractical to avoid it entirely. I myself was almost impacted by the MVP, as one of the routes would have run long-wise through 80 acres we own in WV, with two caves that form the headwaters of a major surface stream. Fortunately public outcry finally got it rerouted to the south (but still not totally off of karst). Much of the gas these pipelines will carry is destined for export, so it won't even really benefit most of us in the U. S. Mark Minton On 2019-12-04 12:44, Bill Stephens wrote: > Sorry Lee, but this is a gas pipeline, a significant difference. > Perhaps working for a pragmatic solution would enable the pipeline to > be routed around critical karst areas. Increased use of Natural Gas > versus coal, is the fundamental reason for significant reductions in > CO2 output in the US over the past decade. > Bill > > On Wednesday, December 4, 2019, 11:09:08 AM MST, Lee H. Skinner > <skin...@thuntek.net<mailto:skin...@thuntek.net>> wrote: > > Do we want an oil pipeline running over West Virginia's cave systems? > > https://grist.org/article/tracing-the-path-of-dominion-energys-atlantic-coast-natural-gas-pipeline > > Lee _______________________________________________ Texascavers mailing list | http://texascavers.com Texascavers@texascavers.com<mailto:Texascavers@texascavers.com> | Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/texascavers@texascavers.com/ http://lists.texascavers.com/listinfo/texascavers _______________________________________________ Texascavers mailing list | http://texascavers.com Texascavers@texascavers.com<mailto:Texascavers@texascavers.com> | Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/texascavers@texascavers.com/ http://lists.texascavers.com/listinfo/texascavers ***This is an external email - beware links & attachments from unknown senders***
_______________________________________________ Texascavers mailing list | http://texascavers.com Texascavers@texascavers.com | Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/texascavers@texascavers.com/ http://lists.texascavers.com/listinfo/texascavers
