Pipeline would encourage natural gas fracking in the state

by Brian Leubitz

The Obama Administration will likely decide on an oil-company backed proposal that would allow unlimited exports of liquid natural gas (LNG) within a few weeks. Big Oil and others whose bottom lines stand to grow from the policy are seeking to muddy the issue. But it really is simple: the results of expanding exports of liquid natural gas (LNG) could have some dramatic impacts on our economy and environment. And with the California GOP possibly looking to use their pro-fracking stance as an electoral issue, these are very relevant questions.

Natural gas prices in the United States have dropped by two-thirds since 2008. It has helped the expansion of U.S. manufacturing and our economic recovery by lowering energy costs for businesses, households and governments. A CNN editorial last year called the drop in prices “one of the most important developments for the U.S. economy in the last 60 years.” Cheaper natural gas gets us one step closer to energy independence, but at a very real cost.

But studies have shown that exporting LNG could increase the price of gas domestically by as much as 300 percent, savagely curtailing our ability to climb out of the recession and to build a competitive 21st century economy. Why is the DOE considering a policy, which would harm American citizens and American industry for the sake of increasing the overseas profits for a few giant oil and gas companies?

While a positive tool for the U.S. economy, workers, and consumers, there are negative environmental and health consequences associated with the methods used to drill for natural gas: hydraulic fracturing, or “fracking.” Fracking has been shown to contaminate air and groundwater, lead to local water shortages, and impact human health, ecosystems, and the global climate.  

Acting on the behalf of oil and gas drilling lobbyists, Congress has excluded fracking from coverage under the Safe Drinking Water Act, the Clean Air Act, or the Clean Water Act, three of America’s vital health and environmental protections. With federal regulation failing to provide adequate public protection, we should do everything in our power to prevent additional market demand for fracking – and expanded unlimited exports would create precisely that demand.

Expanding LNG exportation would translate to Big Oil and gas companies raking in profits overseas (while simultaneously fueling our economic competitors), and Americans here at home suffering increased rates of cancer, child asthma, and respiratory conditions as a result.

Natural gas is currently a cleaner and more socially and economically beneficial energy source than oil or coal.  But, given the environmental and health ramifications, it is best if thought of as a short-term resource for the United States. The best way to take advantage of this resource while still protecting our citizens’ health and our environmental heritage is by limiting natural gas demand to the current U.S. consumption, without expanding sales overseas. In the longer term, natural gas is going to be a less and less attractive option, for environmental, health, and economic reasons. We should not expand our reliance on it.

Oil and gas companies are currently pressing to expand U.S. exports of LNG to other countries, where the price is much higher and therefore, so are the associated profits. While this would increase the profits of these energy companies, it would increase prices for Americans in the short term and encourage more fracking and an economy further based on fossil fuels in the long term.

The Sierra Club, Earthjustice, Clean Water Action, and a host of other major environmental groups have sent a letter to President Obama urging him to oppose expanding liquefied natural gas (LNG) exports until the government conducts additional environmental and economic studies. “Exporting even a fraction of the gas proposed could seriously harm American communities and the environment,” the groups wrote.

Allowing increased natural gas exports would be the worst of both worlds for the United States: we would throw away our current economic advantages and hurt American families in the short term, and damage our communities, health, and planet in the long term.

By sending our gas overseas we’ll be poisoning our land, water, and communities, all for the profit of big oil and gas companies. Not only will we harm communities and families here and now, but we’ll be crippling ourselves for the future. We need to ensure that the DOE understands the consequences of granting any further export permits.

It is good to see that someone in Sacramento is taking the investigation into the horrible PG&E pipeline explosion and loss of life and property seriously. Does not appear that anyone will get away with sweeping the “facts” that lead to the incident (and I really am at a loss of words to adequately describe the explosion and aftermath) get swept “under the rug.” That “someone” in this case is California State Senate Majority Leader Dean Florez.

In an effort to determine the causes of the San Bruno gas line explosion and prevent future such trajedies, Senator Florez is asking Pacific Gas & Electric and the California Public Utilities Commission to turn over hundreds of pages of internal documents to the state Senate.

Arguing that PG&E failed to fix what it knew to be a potentially dangerous problem, the Senate Majority leader is also asking the utility to provide the names of PG&E personnel who worked in the vicinity of the San Bruno pipeline in the days prior to the blast.

In separate letters today to PG&E and the CPUC, Sen. Florez, D-Shafter, cites a pattern of concealment on the part of the utility and a pattern of lax oversight by the public watchdog.

“More than two weeks after the tragedy, we are left with an inescapable question: Did PG&E’s neglect and deferred maintenance, a pattern of nonfeasance, cause the tragedy?” Florez said.

Florez is seeking a wide range of documents that he believes will help to uncover a practice of launching new technologies and yet at the same time, the utility giant has given short shrift to upgrading decaying gas lines that run up and down the state, beneath homes and businesses.

“I believe if these documents are released, they will reveal that PG&E was literally asleep at the switch when it came to identifying and fixing dangerous gas lines such as Line 132 beneath San Bruno.”

“I think we need to know if PG&E received millions of dollars in rate hikes to improve decrepit gas lines but yet, for inexplicable reasons, failed to do the work.”

“Without the documents that I am requesting, I would argue that this is what happened with Line 132,” Florez said. “PG&E had money allocated to do the upgrade. But the repairs were never done. How come? Where did those millions of dollars go?”

In the wake of the San Bruno tragedy, Florez said, PG&E has done its best to confuse the public, issuing a series of inconsistent statements.

In early news accounts, PG&E officials conceded that the utility had received millions of dollars in capital expenditures to repair Line 132 because of its “likelihood of failure” and “unacceptably high” risk.

Then, in later press accounts, PG&E insisted that Line 132 was not a high risk and did not even rank on the most recent list of the Top 100 “high-risk” lines.

Why was Line 132 removed from the most recent “high risk” list? Did PG&E make repairs to Line 132 that lessened the risk? Or was the accounting of these high-risk lines so arbitrary that decaying lines were moved on and off the list–without rhyme or reason?

Then there is PG&E’s insistence that it knew nothing about gas odors emanating from the San Bruno pipeline in the days prior to the explosion. The utility also denies that its records show that PG&E crews were dispatched to the neighborhood in the days prior to the blast.

Florez is seeking the names of PG&E personnel who recently worked in the area.

“Our office wants to question those PG&E workers. Do we believe PG&E higher ups? Or do we believe resident after resident quoted in prominent newspapers about gas odors and PG&E trucks sent to the San Bruno neighborhood in the days prior?

“Frankly, after butting heads with PG&E over the past year on rate hikes and SmartMeters, I don’t trust their corporate culture.”

Florez says his office has much experience digging into PG&E and would act as a state clearinghouse for the information.

“PG&E is a morass to dig through, but we know the questions to ask and the documents to seek. My plan is to share those documents with my fellow legislators who will be holding hearings on the matter. The public deserves to know the truth.”

Stay Tuned! I will post updates on FreeFlightNewMedia.TypePad.Com and a summary as warranted here on Calitics.com.