U.S. Forest Service Prohibits Shell Oil From Using Forest Water

[Maurice]

I think this is the spot where I have to interject.....

Get a room you two. :-D

Just kidding David.

 

[David]

@ Maurice,
But what did I say? (LOL) 😛int: Maybe we need to get out fishing more?

Oh, geez, now I've gone and posted myself as Dave. Sorry guys!
You Know Who

 

[Missy]

@ Bikerfish,
I think you make a very good hedonist! 😎

 

[salvelinusfontinalis]

be done, thats what most of the anti's do....hold your breath till you turn blue when you can't prove a point

:roll:

 

[RLeep2]

All the Bronx cheers, thinly disguised commies and rapacious plunderers aside, its a simple fact that Federal intervention into these clean water questions is often a good thing for the resource and the attendant fisheries. There are a number of obvious reasons:

1) Local control and local decision making (in this case at the state level) , while theoretically having the advantage of being "closer to the situation", is also closer (and more vulnerable) to various types of influence and pressure from monied interests. This often results in myopic decisions. Its can be far easier to successfully pressure a state legislator or regulatory agency (note I said pressure, not compromise or corrupt. I'm not throwing any stones here) than it is the comparable person at the Federal level.

2) There isn't a single drop of water that flows in a Pennsylvania stream that doesn't eventually end up in another state.
This, IMO, at least (although Congress and the courts have disagreed from time to time) takes most of the wind out of the sails of the 10th Amendment argument for the individual states being the defining level of control on water quality issues.

3) The Federal Clean Water Act has a citizen's suit provision that allows any individual who can demonstrate standing through harm by polluters to their interests to file in Federal court. I don't believe any of the state laws have this provision. The value of the citizen's suit provision isn't so much in actually dragging polluters into court. It seldom ever gets to that point. The value is more like when Yosemite Sam used to hold the glue pot under the mule's nose to get him moving. It gets people's attention. The simple act of filing intention to sue can do wonders to get people talking and working on solutions that are acceptable to all and most importantly do not unduly compromise the integrity of the resource for short term financial gains.

So, I welcome Federal participation in the regulatory dialogue and process as it relates to shale gas exploration and operations in Pennsylvania. It is a good way of helping to ensure a more even playing field, IMO.

 

[jdaddy]

Gudgeonville wrote:

Run by socialists and anti industry people that could care less about anything except stopping all industry.

Couldn't.

 

[Chaz]

WE do not benefit in any way by the drilling for gas, it is being sent overseas and because the Commonwealth is not going to tax the drilling companies we'll get nothing for the use of the land save the mess they leave behind for us to pay for cleanup.

 

[sandfly]

Chaz has hit the nail on the head...

 

[franklin]

Chaz wrote:
WE do not benefit in any way by the drilling for gas, it is being sent overseas and because the Commonwealth is not going to tax the drilling companies we'll get nothing for the use of the land save the mess they leave behind for us to pay for cleanup.

My understanding is the only LNG terminal used to export gas from the US is in Alaska. Is PA gas being shipped to Alaska then overseas?

 

[tomgamber]

franklin wrote:

Chaz wrote:
WE do not benefit in any way by the drilling for gas, it is being sent overseas and because the Commonwealth is not going to tax the drilling companies we'll get nothing for the use of the land save the mess they leave behind for us to pay for cleanup.

My understanding is the only LNG terminal used to export gas from the US is in Alaska. Is PA gas being shipped to Alaska then overseas?

The following LNG off-loading and regasification terminals are located in the United States and Gulf of Mexico:[12]

Dominion Cove Point LNG, LP, Lusby, Maryland - (Dominion Resources)[13]
Gulf Gateway Deepwater Port, Gulf of Mexico - (Excelerate Energy LLC)[14]
Northeast Gateway Deepwater Port, Boston Harbor - (Excelerate Energy LLC),[15] licensed by the US Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration (Marad)[16]
Southern LNG, Elba Island, Georgia - (El Paso Energy)[17][18]
Trunkline LNG, Lake Charles, Louisiana - (Trunkline LNG Company, LLC)[19][20]
EcoEléctrica, Punta Guayanilla, Puerto Rico[21][22]
Sabine Pass LNG, rural Cameron Parish, Louisiana - (Cheniere Energy, Inc.)[23][24]
Cameron LNG, rural Cameron Parish, Louisiana - (Sempra Energy)[25][26]
Freeport LNG, Freeport, Texas - (Freeport LNG Development, LP)[27][28]
Everett Marine Terminal, Everett, Massachusetts - (Distrigas of Massachusetts LLC)[29][30]
Northeast Gateway Deepwater Port, offshore from Gloucester, Massachusetts,[31] licensed by the US Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration (Marad)[32]
Neptune LNG, offshore from Gloucester, Massachusetts,[33] licensed by the US Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration (Marad)[32]

next!

 

[franklin]

tomgamber wrote:

franklin wrote:

Chaz wrote:
WE do not benefit in any way by the drilling for gas, it is being sent overseas and because the Commonwealth is not going to tax the drilling companies we'll get nothing for the use of the land save the mess they leave behind for us to pay for cleanup.

My understanding is the only LNG terminal used to export gas from the US is in Alaska. Is PA gas being shipped to Alaska then overseas?

The following LNG off-loading and regasification terminals are located in the United States and Gulf of Mexico:[12]

Dominion Cove Point LNG, LP, Lusby, Maryland - (Dominion Resources)[13]
Gulf Gateway Deepwater Port, Gulf of Mexico - (Excelerate Energy LLC)[14]
Northeast Gateway Deepwater Port, Boston Harbor - (Excelerate Energy LLC),[15] licensed by the US Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration (Marad)[16]
Southern LNG, Elba Island, Georgia - (El Paso Energy)[17][18]
Trunkline LNG, Lake Charles, Louisiana - (Trunkline LNG Company, LLC)[19][20]
EcoEléctrica, Punta Guayanilla, Puerto Rico[21][22]
Sabine Pass LNG, rural Cameron Parish, Louisiana - (Cheniere Energy, Inc.)[23][24]
Cameron LNG, rural Cameron Parish, Louisiana - (Sempra Energy)[25][26]
Freeport LNG, Freeport, Texas - (Freeport LNG Development, LP)[27][28]
Everett Marine Terminal, Everett, Massachusetts - (Distrigas of Massachusetts LLC)[29][30]
Northeast Gateway Deepwater Port, offshore from Gloucester, Massachusetts,[31] licensed by the US Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration (Marad)[32]
Neptune LNG, offshore from Gloucester, Massachusetts,[33] licensed by the US Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration (Marad)[32]

next!

Import terminals, not export. Export facilities require a liquification plant. Much different than an unloading facility for LNG ships.

 

[TimMurphy]

Dear franklin,

The plan is to expand the Dominion Energy terminal in Cove Point MD so that the gas can be exported to Norway, Finland, and Russia. They need a reliable supply of natural gas, WE DON'T.

That's the hope anyway. So much for energy independence, it's just another way for big money to make more big money by trading something they never have to actually own and to Hell with everyone else.

Regards,

Tim Murphy

 

[franklin]

TimMurphy wrote:
Dear franklin,

The plan is to expand the Dominion Energy terminal in Cove Point MD so that the gas can be exported to Norway, Finland, and Russia. They need a reliable supply of natural gas, WE DON'T.

That's the hope anyway. So much for energy independence, it's just another way for big money to make more big money by trading something they never have to actually own and to Hell with everyone else.

Regards,

Tim Murphy

Tim;

I have no doubt that at some point we will be exporting a percentage of our natural gas. The amount will be influenced by global energy prices at the time.

The myth that currently all MS gas is being exported is perpetuated by an inaccurate news report in a regional newspaper spread on the WEB. I would be surprised if we export more than 5% to 10% of annual volume once any facilities in the lower 48 are available. (Due to the safety zone required in the area for a LNG liquification facility there are not many locations on the east/west coast they could be placed.)



edit: informative site

http://www.energy.ca.gov/lng/worldwide_united_states.html

 

[tomgamber]

Franklin's problem is he can't or doesn't choose to see beyond next week. As Tim said, the plans are to export the gas. They are still drilling wells. Production isn't even anywhere near where it can be. Those who would like the US be energy independent are looking to stop it before it happens.

"Citing abundant access to supplies of natural gas from Pennsylvania's Marcellus shale and elsewhere, Virginia-based Dominion Resources Inc. said on Friday that it filed a request with the Department of Energy to begin exporting liquefied gas from its Cove Point terminal in Maryland."

Read more: Dominion files request to export liquefied natural gas - Pittsburgh Tribune-Review http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/business/s_754855.html#ixzz1YL4slkOk

"...in May, DOE approved Cheniere Energy's export terminal in Louisiana, which even Chenier concedes will result in an 11-percent spike in natural gas prices in the U.S. LNG terminals in Lake Charles, La., Freeport, Texas, and on the Chesapeake Bay are seeking similar approval. "


http://www.oregonlive.com/news/oregonian/steve_duin/index.ssf/2011/09/so_much_for_energy_independenc.html

 

[tomgamber]

franklin wrote:




edit: informative site

http://www.energy.ca.gov/lng/worldwide_united_states.html

that's cute...after all who would be more in tune with east coast gas drilling and exports than the state of Ahhhnuld... :lol: :lol:

 

[franklin]

tomgamber wrote:

franklin wrote:




edit: informative site

http://www.energy.ca.gov/lng/worldwide_united_states.html

that's cute...after all who would be more in tune with east coast gas drilling and exports than the state of Ahhhnuld... :lol: :lol:

One of many sources. Maybe CA but more accurate than your initial list of "export" terminals.

 

[iceyguides]

the estimates of the amount of natural gas in the marcellus have been downgraded from 410 trillion cubic ft to 84. http://www.cnn.com/2011/US/09/20/philadelphia.fracking.protests/index.html Hopefully this will slow the ridiculous pace of development. Funny how practically every other state/country, md, ny,quebec, germany, france, south africa, has approached this situation with more prudence. Nope, not pa, as soon as we heard the word money we said "hey everyone hurry up come rape our forests and streams."