The recent Huffington Post article that went out about the PennEast pipeline has made a big splash with pipeline opponents (and with good reason).  For those not familiar with it it’s available here:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/wild-river-review/beleaguered-new-jersey-co_b_7984424.html

As part of her research, the article’s author, Joy E. Stocke, interviewed PennEast spokes person Patricia Kornick. Joy was kind enough to share her Q&A information with us and has consented on letting me release it on the FERC docket.

That QA and available below in the FERC-generated PDF:

http://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/common/opennat.asp?fileID=13959687

I’ve included my own rebuttal to the Ms. Kornick’s answers in the document and the full text of the submission is recreated here.

My personal observation of the Q&A

At a high level I have to say that PennEast’s responses are appalling and highly unresponsive. People have very specific concerns and questions and PennEast responds predominantly with condescending boilerplate and platitudes. FERC staff should see this as a prime example of how PennEast “reaches out” to the community – by talking down to us, by obfuscating the facts, by hiding behind jargon and evading plain questions whenever they can. This is not “reaching out”. This is an insult to our communities, our families, and our lives. I submit that none of these actions should not count as “community outreach” according to NEPA standards and that PennEast should be found wholly deficient in this area.

Q/A Section

Question to PennEast from TC Onstott – PhD Geosciences – Princeton University.   In 2007 listed as one of TIME Magazine’s most influential people in the world:

It is pretty clear from the current PennEast Map, that the pipeline passes right through the center of the highest arsenic concentration in the State of New Jersey. The Pipeline goes through legally permanently protected land including Open Spaces, Preserved Farmland, DEP preserved lands, and land trusts. It runs within a few hundred feet of reservoirs such as the Swan Creek reservoir, which provides drinking water to West Amwell. It runs through a county where nearly all residents rely on private wells for their water and private septic systems. Arsenic is the most important pollutant of wells in the state. That is why the wells are so carefully monitored. The arsenic comes from the rocks and enters the aquifer. PennEast proposes to mainly blast their way through the rocks to make the trench. That is because the soil zone is so thin in these same counties Hunterdon/Mercer where the arsenic is so high. MOST IMPORTANTLY, this is rural country and a sole source aquifer. The vast majority of residences depend upon their well water. The towns all depend upon local wells all provide by this same aquifer and aquifer which is very sensitive to this type of construction because it is open to the surface. This is a fractured rock aquifer so there is not that much groundwater to begin with and the rain fall is not that great in this region either. So any contamination takes a very long time to dilute with fresh recharge water. Why would PennEast risk the drinking water for these communities? And how did they not know about this before they proposed their route?

PennEast Response:
Please appreciate that PennEast employs a seasoned team of safety, engineering, environmental, geologists and other specialists with vast experience working within the energy industry and on pipeline infrastructure projects. The PennEast team is dedicated to examining all aspects associated with safely constructing and operating the pipeline while minimizing impact to the community and environment. The team is conducting various studies to ensure it has an accurate understanding of the underlying geology of the proposed route and will assess any risks and develop applicable mitigation measures to ensure safe construction near critical water supplies. Given the various challenging environments in which pipelines have been built across the country, and the improved construction techniques used today to manage these types of risk, PennEast is confident it will be able to adequately address these concerns.

My Comments:
Professor Onstott can comment best on this. But I will add that the State of NJ, Hunterdon County, Mercer County, the various municipalities in the region, and organizations such as the Stony Brook Millstone Watershed Association have been studying this area for decades. The issues we have with our watershed, drinking water recharge, arsenic issues, radon issues, etc are all extraordinarily well documented. Thousands of pages of studies are available on these topics. PennEast appears to be ignoring all of this information and instead will be paying for their own biased experts from the natural gas industry who will spend only weeks or months investigating serious issues we have been struggling with for decades. Responses such as the above serve only to show PennEast’s over-confidence and total lack of information about the route they have chosen. To put it bluntly we have no reason to trust that a rushed survey under a PennEast deadline is going to be of the same quality and accuracy as the surveys local governments and environmental organizations have done based on year after year after year of observation.

Question to PennEast:
PennEast listed the homes that would be benefitting from the Marcellus Shale Gas. Would you list them again? PennEast claims to service 4.7 million homes in NJ and PA. The Transco Leidy Loop claims 2 million for their project in Princeton. The TEAM 14 project, just approved by FERC, will add the equivalent of 2.8 million homes to its route which terminates in Lambertville NJ and Staten Island. A projected total of new local service to some 9.5 million homes just from these 3 projects. NJ and PA have two of the worst recoveries from the Great Recession and there are no housing or business booms that would qualify this kind of expansion. The 2013 Census shows a total of 3.5 million housing units in NJ, 80% of them already using natural gas.

PennEast Response:
In an effort not to quantify without using industry terms (e.g., bcf, mcf), PennEast has shared that the natural gas transported through the pipeline would be enough to heat the equivalent of 4.7 million homes, not listing specific homes or communities to be directly serviced. The PennEast website is being update to ensure this point is reflected accurately. PennEast provides a much-needed expansion of upstream pipeline capacity that ultimately provides supply to entities that serve consumers throughout the region with critical energy distribution service. Natural gas is not consumed only by residential consumers, nor does the number of 3.5 million housing units above listed reflect the overall market for natural gas demand. Natural gas also is used by businesses, industry, transportation, hospitals, schools, and government. Its role in electric generation also is growing, with natural gas being a major source of fuel for the region’s newest fleet of power generation units. PennEast consistently has represented the benefits extend to New Jersey and Pennsylvania consumers, and in all likelihood, surrounding states, as well. ConEdison, a metropolitan New York utility, also recently subscribed for capacity. Simple census data is not reliable to dissect the complexities of the natural gas and electricity market dynamics; in actuality, this is where many often mistake the true benefits that would be realized from the Project. Generalized data or averages miss peculiarities or nuances to many areas of the demand market. Unlike any of the projects above listed, PennEast represents a targeted benefit to the utilities that have been providing critical energy distribution service to the region’s consumers, which in part explains why all of the New Jersey utilities have subscribed capacity on the project.

My Comments:
This answer is highly evasive and does not match the facts. The majority of the companies subscribed to the PennEast pipeline are national, not local entities, and are involved in midstream transportation as well as local use. While they could use some of this gas for local use, in fact the companies can also consider these part of their midstream assets and transport the gas elsewhere over their existing networks. Examples include Spectra Energy, a company that operates throughout the U.S. New Jersey Resources, who sells gas throughout the Atlantic and New England states. And UGI Energy Services, who has been playing up their recent overseas LNG acquisitions in the financial press. The addition of ConEdison to the mix further underlines this fact. PennEast keeps increasing its scope over time. At first it was just for PA and NJ. Then PA and NJ and “surrounding states”. Then it was PA and NJ and NY and surrounding states”. Companies such as Spectra Energy simply refer to “The Region”. In reality PennEast’s increasing scope creep demonstrates that they cannot find sufficient consumers for their natural gas in PA and NJ and had to look elsewhere for the majority of the usage.

Question to PennEast:
NJ averages a total of 1.8 billion cubic feet of natural gas per day across all users. The PennEast pipeline will add 1 billion cubic feet to that mix. How can PennEast justify adding 55% over-capacity?

PennEast Response:
Again, natural gas markets are very complex and data referencing average daily use overlooks the significant seasonality of natural gas demand markets. Over the last decade, the reality is that natural gas demand — baseload and peak — has increased significantly. Natural gas demand is projected to continue to grow significantly due to its abundance, and its economic and environmental benefits. While you might disagree, natural gas represents an affordable, clean source of energy that most homes, businesses and industry prefer if it is available to them.

My Comments:
This response from PennEast makes a number of assertions, but critically contains no numbers or references to back those assertions up. The facts are that NJ is well served by natural gas now and in the future, and PennEast is a vast overkill. In reality NJ uses only 1.8 billion cubic feet per day of gas on average, for a total of 657 billion cubic feet a year. PennEast will be carrying 365 cubic feet per year into the state – which is again a 55% over-capacity. On natural gas demand projections – PennEast is flat out wrong. Government studies show that natural gas use is expected to decline out to 2040, with the exception of electrical generation. That will show modest increases as coal plants are converted to natural gas, but the emphasis here is on “modest”. And specifically in NJ only a single coal plant is planned to be converted to natural gas. So in NJ demand is projected to trend down out to 2040. PennEast has been provided with numerous DOE and EIA.GOV studies that have contradicted their empty assertions such as the one above. If they want to keep making these assertions they’re going to have to back it up with hard data and facts.

Question to PennEast:
NJ enjoys the 4th lowest residential natural gas prices in the country (actually we’re tied for 4th). Explain why we need to add 55% more natural gas with prices this low?

PennEast Response:
It is easy to mistake the complexity of the natural gas markets, as natural gas costs in the region continue to be one of the highest in the nation when the current pipeline capacity is at full demand. (This generally occurs during peak seasonal demands.) If the lowest cost source of gas literally is right next door, why not ensure it can be delivered in a reliable, environmentally friendly, affordable manner, and specifically, to benefit consumers within the region? While there are some who can afford the energy delivered to local markets, most people would welcome additional cost savings, especially in light of the above-referenced slowed regional recovery from the Great Recession. Reduced energy rates also mean greater disposable income and greater quality of life. Lower cost energy to businesses and industry translates to competitiveness in a regional, national and global marketplace, which can lead to job growth and numerous other benefits. At a time when schools and government are looking to rein costs, maintain tax revenue and improve their communities, natural gas offers a pragmatic solution.

My Comment:
The above response from PennEast does not answer the question at all. In fact, the original question understated the position NJ is in as it referenced it older set of eia.gov data. The April 2015 numbers show New Jersey with the lowest natural gas prices in the entire country. So let’s repeat the question, but with the updated data: why does NJ need a 55% supply increase when we have the lowest residential natural gas prices in the entire United States. On the issue of peak seasonal demands, as mentioned elsewhere those problems have been alleviated. As of 2015 FERC has indicated that the supply issues New Jersey faced have been fixed, and that despite one of the harshest winters in recent memory the natural gas industry came out fine. The addition of the Leidy Line Southeast Expansion project will add even more cushion. So – why, again, does PennEast think we need an extra billion cubic feet a day?

Question to PennEast:
What are PennEast’s projections for electrical and natural gas prices in NJ out to 2040? They claim New Jersyans will see a cost savings, let’s see an actual number. I ask this because a joint DOE/EIA.GOV study projects natural gas and electrical prices will rise in all of the scenarios they’ve studied due to the expansin of the LNG Industry. The numbers go over 10% in some scenarios.

PennEast Response:
PennEast does not make such projections; however, it evaluates the behavior of the market, researches credible predictions about what could happen and plans accordingly. PennEast consistently has shared that New Jerseyans and Pennsylvanians will see benefits, which is supported by the third-party report developed by Concentric Energy Advisors. It is probable that neighboring New Yorkers, Marylanders and others also are likely to see benefits, though to a lesser degree than the primary New Jersey and Pennsylvania communities. I am not certain about some of the points you are asking with this question. If your argument is that PennEast should ensure the lowest cost of natural gas as possible for regional consumers, PennEast agrees. If LNG exports marginally increase domestic prices, PennEast offers the ability to ensure a direct connection to the lowest cost source of natural gas in the country.

My Comment:
What doesn’t PennEast understand about this question? Do they have price models or do they not? If they don’t, then they’re lying to the public if they’re saying their pipeline will save consumers money. It’s that simple. PennEast claims that its member companies are predominantly public utilities that will use the gas locally. It is not even remotely credible that local utilities have no price or consumption projections.

PennEast statement:

PennEast is not an LNG export project nor is it connected to any export facility. Much to the contrary, PennEast is subscribed primarily by local distributors of natural gas.

My Comment:
This assertion is wrong on many counts. First, UGI, Spectra Energy, and NJR are all national companies serving wide regions. Second, the PennEast pipeline is connecting to pipelines which will
connect to the approved Cove Point LNG Export facility under construction now. PennEast’s Lambertville interconnects have also been explicitly named by Downeast LNG which is in pre-filing with FERC right now.

Question to PennEast:
What are Spectra Energy’s specific plans for their cut of the gas?

PennEast Response:

The partners’ plans for the natural gas are outlined in Draft Resource Report 1: (http://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/file_list.asp?accession_num=20150416-5108).

My Comment:
The only mention of Spectra Energy’s plans in that document are listed under Texas Eastern. It states:

“The PennEast Project provides Texas Eastern with direct access to the eastern Marcellus, which allows Texas Eastern to increase supply diversity and optionality for its shippers and for markets that it serves in the region. “

This is a non-answer and certainly does not paint Spectra Energy as a local service provider. I’ll ask again – what are Spectra Energy’s specific plans for this gas? They are the second largest subscriber t the pipeline with over 13% of the total volume (125,000 Dth/Day) so their plans are material and significant.

Question to PennEast:
PennEast has widely cited their commissioned study indicating that the region would have saved $890 million if the pipeline had been here in the winter of 2013-2014. Does PennEast realize that this study is invalid on its face because the problems cited by the study have been rectified? FERC itself has made this clear in their 2014 State of the Markets report:

Click to access 2014-som.pdf

Their report can be summed up from this quote:

“By many measures, this winter rivaled last year’s in terms of record low temperatures across much of the country, and in overall demand for electricity. However, compared to last winter, with its series of Polar Vortex events in early 2014, the wholesale power markets and natural gas pipeline system performed remarkably well.”

PennEast Response:
The suggestion that the problem has been rectified is another example of misinformation generally inferred from those unfamiliar with the intricacies of the market. One of the greatest concerns during the polar vortex was the fact that the regional pipeline system was stressed significantly and on the verge of not meeting demand throughout the winter. In fact, some utilities required interruptions of non-critical demand users.

The resulting price impacts reached record highs. This past winter was different. The actual number of colder days was greater, but the peak cold days were not as significant and the colder weather occurred later in the season. Additionally, several electric regional transmission organizations (RTOs) ensured that power generators reliant on dirty fuel sources (e.g., oil) were able to run in emergency conditions to reduce the load on the natural gas pipeline system; environmentally, this was less than ideal.

It also is important to note that while the winter price peaks might have been less pronounced in the latest winter, the average differential between the local supply pricing and the local market prices primarily was sustained, as compared to the previous polar vortex winter. This again suggests there was significant opportunity for local consumers to realize greater energy cost savings. As you might have noticed in reading the Concentric report, it notes that it used a significantly conservative approach, omitting many of the coldest days of the polar vortex; therefore, it did not account for the highest costs for natural gas during the polar vortex. If it had, the potential savings would have been significantly greater.

Any improvement over the polar vortex winter still would leave a tremendous amount of room for cost savings, and meanwhile, this overlooks the fact that the demand for natural gas supply and the taxing effect on the existing regional pipeline system continues to grow.

My Comment:
The problem with this response is that it ignores the FERC report entirely, and focuses on a highly biased report commissioned by PennEast. PennEast should actually read the FERC report and give hard numbers on why the PennEast pipeline is needed in light of that report. As it is PennEast is effectively admitting that their “$890 million” is incorrect and vastly overblown in real market terms. If you factor in the recent DOE and EIA.gov reports on LNG export ramp up for the next 25 years, in reality pipelines like PennEast will result in a net increase of natural gas prices and increased costs to consumers up to a staggering 10% increase. PennEast will not be saving us money; to the contrary PennEast will put consumers in a position where they will be competing with overseas markets where natural gas costs 4x what it does here.

Question to PennEast:
PennEast claims it’s creating jobs, yet observers along the pipeline survey route in Delaware and Hopewell Townships have been keeping track of license plates and not one of them are from New Jersey. How many people will be hired in New Jersey and where?

PennEast Response:
From the beginning, PennEast has shared that it would be hiring a local workforce as much as possible. There are occasions when the specialized nature of the work will involve resources beyond New Jersey and Pennsylvania, which also is something PennEast has shared. PennEast has local engineers, consultants, legal resources, and contractors from New Jersey and Pennsylvania working on the Project. The majority of the team members are from the region, so their license plates would not be noticed. Additionally, PennEast is spending significant amounts in the local communities, though this is only the beginning compared to the economic boon that will occur once construction begins.

My Comment:
PennEast is apparently not aware of how surveys are done. The surveyors park their trucks and other vehicles on the side of the road and then go into the survey areas for extended periods of time. Observers have noted that 3/4 of the license plates are from out of state. Only a quarter are from NJ or PA. If PennEast wants to refute this they should give specific numbers on how many PA and NJ workers have been employed by them or their contractors on this project, and how many are from out of state.

Question to PennEast:
Can you guarantee 100 percent that PennEast gas is not for export? Can you guarantee that no additional pipes can EVER be built along the route? Especially those containing LNG for export? What is to stop the same consortium from forming another LLC? PennEast Response: As I shared when we talked, the natural gas being transported through the PennEast Pipeline would be to serve consumers in New Jersey and Pennsylvania. In spite of oppositionists’ claims to know otherwise, it would not be for export. Additionally, PennEast has had no discussions with its shippers about the desire to export gas overseas nor has PennEast had discussions with any interconnecting facility operators about plans to build export facilities off the PennEast pipeline.

Also as shared when we talked, PennEast cannot guarantee that other pipelines would not be built along the proposed route. Market and environmental conditions might dictate that additional pipeline infrastructure is necessary.

As to your point regarding LNG, pipelines often do not carry LNG. LNG for export is natural gas that is liquefied at a specialized facility, typically near a port or other easily accessible location along a navigable waterbody. In theory, there is nothing to stop the consortium from forming another LLC, but why would PennEast Pipeline Company want to form another LLC? If PennEast Pipeline Company believes additional pipeline infrastructure is needed and PennEast is best suited to deliver that service, PennEast would develop that Project.

The notion that the partnership or consortium of the major regional distributors of energy to New Jersey and southeastern Pennsylvania consumers is a bad thing seems counterintuitive. Rather, PennEast believes it signals the unified viewpoint by energy experts who have centuries of experience providing this critical energy service to the region’s consumers.

My Comment:
There are documented submissions to the FERC showing where PennEast connects to a pipeline which connects to the Cove Point LNG export facility under construction today. There are also documented connections the Downeast LNG export facility in FERC pre-filing. PennEast’s assertions on this are flat out wrong. Cove Point is on track be online in 2017, and Downeast LNG is entering the FERC process for their import/export terminal. I ask PennEast this point blank: will PennEast connect indirectly to these systems once they are completed as planned, or will they not?

In addition, PennEast is contradicting themselves in this very Q&A document. In this section PennEast has fallen back to saying “the natural gas being transported through the PennEast Pipeline would be to serve consumers in New Jersey and Pennsylvania”. Yet in other areas of this Q&A they admit to this gas being also being sent to the NYC metro market via Con Edison, and other shippers such as Spectra Energy indicate that they will be sending the gas out to “the region”. PennEast can’t even keep their answers straight when speaking to one single journalist.

Update August 22, 2016:

If you want to help stop these catastrophes, please comment on the PennEast DEIS and help us stop this project dead in its tracks.  Visit the site below to learn how:
Link – You can help us stop the PennEast Pipeline! It’s free and easy and you can make a difference.

Also, Joy Stocke has another excellent article out about PennEast and FERC.
The Truth about Pipeline Companies and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission: Communities, Senators and Members of Congress Speak Out

Yesterday the Huffington Post featured a lengthy article on the PennEast pipeline by Joy E. Stock. The article is available here:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/wild-river-review/beleaguered-new-jersey-co_b_7984424.html

It’s an excellent read with a great deal of breadth, covering pipeline issues from justification for the pipeline, concerns of arsenic and drinking water quality, safety problems, and personal stories from people affected by the proposed route.

The photos accompanying the article were really exceptional as well. One picture in particular really caught my eye – it was this one:

>

This shows a “pipeline blowout” that occurred near Appomattox, Virginia in 2008. Here’s what happened:

• At 7:44 am. EDT on September 14, 2008 the Williams Transco “B” line failed. Soil and debris rocketed out of the ground and natural gas started spewing out of the ground.
• Two minutes later, the pressurized gas and/or debris felled a power line, which sparked and ignited the gas.
• 15 minutes after the failure the nearest Compressor station was sent into emergency shutdown.
• 26 minutes after the failure the upstream valve was closed
• 36 minutes after the failure the downstream valve was closed
• The fire jetted out of the pipeline for 34 minutes.  It did not cease until the compressor station and both up and downstream valves were closed.  Shutdown of a single valve or station was insufficient to stop it.
• The fireball was reported to be 1/4 mile in height and breadth by an expert eyewitness.
• Five residents were injured.  Three suffered second and third degree burns.  Two houses were destroyed.  95 houses were damaged.

The root cause of this accident was insufficient maintenance of cathodic protection.  Williams Transco was fined nearly a million dollars because they did not maintain the system properly, and the pipeline failed due to corrosion.

Firefighters on the scene followed prescribed protocols and this helped prevent any loss of life, but the protocols could not prevent the injuries or property damage.  Specifically, the protocols indicate that fire companies can do NOTHING while the pipeline has pressurized gas in it and the affected section must be isolated completely including up and downstream valves and compressor station(s) involved. In this instance it means first responders had to stand by and watch it burn for 34 minutes before the pipeline was shut down.

Only after that could they start fighting individual fires of houses and trees.

This was a 36″ pipeline….at 800 PSI.  The pipeline was operating just below its maximum allowable pressure.

The PennEast Pipeline will be operating at 1480PSI.

I continue to be amazed that a conglomerate of 6 large corporations like PennEast makes so many – and such a wide variety of – errors. Their slogan really should be:

PennEast Pipeline Company LLC: The “oops” company.

PennEast has made statements in lots of different media: public and private meetings, FERC submissions, newspaper articles, letters to the editor. And it’s simply astounding to me how many mistakes, errors, gaffes, and outrageous missteps they’ve made in all of them. There isn’t any one spokesman or employee that’s been messing up. It basically seems to be all of them.

One of their most recent epic-sized faux pas is in the area of co-location. This is a hot topic. Co-location is generally seen as a good thing and gets pipeline companies brownie points with some people. So naturally PennEast crowed to the rooftops when they made their route change in January and claimed they were now co-located for most of the route. The big change was in NJ where they co-located along an existing JCP&L power line easement, bringing them up to 60% co-location in the state.

Except that it wasn’t really co-location. Subsequent filings from PennEast showing construction diagrams clearly showed that the pipeline would have to be placed a considerable distance from the power lines, and their construction ROW would have to be confined to one side of the power lines. This was documented in April here:

https://thecostofthepipeline.com/2015/04/29/why-co-location-isnt-a-panacea

Still PennEast persisted and said that they were co-located. They proudly presented this fact even to the NJ DEP – who promptly said that even 60% wasn’t enough.

Apparently someone at PennEast finally woke up and actually looked at the construction plans, and then looked up the definition of co-location (or maybe FERC reminded them). And saw they had made a HUGE mistake. It’s finally documented in their most recent set of resource reports from last week.

Here you can see PennEast now admitting that only 36% of the total project is co-located, with 39% in NJ and 35% in PA. Meaning that PENNEAST ADMITS THAT NEARLY TWO-THIRDS of the route is NOT CO-LOCATED.

This is yet another epic fail from PennEast…and serves as yet another one from a long list of them.

When are they going to figure out that they’re just not capable of building this pipeline and give it up?

Changes to the Pipeline Route have come in. They are available permanently on the “Detailed Route Map” link above as well.

https://www.google.com/maps/d/edit?mid=zBHvkb8lr8vw.koP3GtgS1aLc&usp=sharing”

Green is the March route, Red is the July route.

There only a few major changes.

List of changes:

NJ:

Change at the terminus in Pennington, NJ, new houses impacted.

Change at Lambertville interconnect, now south of 202 instead of North of it (away from Alexauken Creek but destroying more forest).

Small change at Lambertville-Headquarters Road.

Small change at Sergeantsville Road

Further west between Kingwood Locktown Road and Barberton Point Breeze Road (new houses impacted, some VERY close). Looks like they are screwing homeowners to save the solar array.

Small change near Everittsville Farm Lane.

Small change near Gilbert Generating station in Milford/Holland.

PA:

Slightly to the North on Bath Road, impacting a couple more houses (one has the centerline through their house).

Major change at Appalachian Trail. They now virgin cut far more forest going far west to cross the trail near a quarry. It now also takes out 2/3 of the quarry parking lot.

Major change at Route 81. Now further to the East and closer to a quarry again (PE loves quarries!). 14 new houses added to the route.

An enormous group of agencies, towns, organizations, and individuals have been fighting the PennEast pipeline for months now. At times it’s been a hard, grueling campaign and we all lose heart a little bit here and there. It’s easy feel a bit of despair at the enormity of the task, and the length of the road ahead of us.

But we’ve hung in there, and the efforts of so many people working towards a common goal is finally beginning to snow ball. We are seeing more and more negative news items about PennEast. More and more townships, like Delaware Township, are rising up to demand their elected officials take a hard stand against the pipeline. And conservation organizations keep grinding away, day after day and week after week, producing mountains of evidence against PennEast.

Then we have a week like last week.  The NJ DEP issued a report to the FERC saying that they couldn’t evaluate PennEast’s applications at all because their survey permission rate was below 35%, and that in general their submissions were woefully incomplete and inadequate:

http://www.nj.com/mercer/index.ssf/2015/07/opponents_of_12_billion_penneast_pipeline_see_vict.html

http://www.lehighvalleylive.com/news/index.ssf/2015/07/penneast_pipeline_has_a_ways_t.html

This is a momental setback for PennEast and a dire blow to their plans to run this pipeline anywhere through NJ.

And then we have a week like this one. Reports have started pouring in from around the region that PennEast had been conducting test bores all over the place. Drilling rigs have been spotted in NJ and PA.

One of the most disturbing was a rig discovered in Mercer county off of Pleasant Valley Road. Conservationists and individuals swooped in and investigated the site, took pictures, and started digging what was going on and who gave permission for test bores to be drilled into Baldpate. They discovered that PennEast had been talking to Mercer County about it, and PennEast more or less conned Mercer County into granting permission for test bores.

The outrage over this was deafening. People poured out of the woodwork to lodge complaints and protest this violation of a unique, preserved site.

And here’s the really amazing part: it worked. Mercer County Executive Brian M. Hughes released a statement today saying that they would be blocking all further access by PennEast:

He states in the release:

In light of the intrusion on numerous ecosystems and news that the N.J. Department of Environmental Protection has been unable to collect enough information to issue permits to PennEast to perform work, the county has blocked further access to its property….

Unless this project receives federal approval, the county will no longer permit any soil borings to occur on Baldpate Mountain. The county is prepared to fight on the behalf of county interests and to fight for the open space it has purchased. The county remains opposed to the pipeline

The Executive also sent a very strongly worded letter to PennEast that was reported in this article:

http://www.nj.com/mercer/index.ssf/2015/07/mercer_county_boots_penneast_pipeline_from_county.html

“PennEast is directed to immediately CEASE AND DESIST all activities on County property,” the letter reads. “Please have your company’s contractor(s) immediately remove all equipment and personnel from the County’s property, after returning the property to the condition it enjoyed prior to any work being conducted.”

This bold action is the result of the hard work of organizations such as the New Jersey Conservation Foundation, Hopewell Township Citizens Against the Pipeline, the Sourland Conservancy, the Delaware Riverkeeper Network, and individuals such as Fairfax Hutter who brought this information to the attention of the county and sought action from them.

A  similar fight is brewing up in Holland Township, where anti-pipeline groups have observed similar test drilling rigs being setup in sensitive areas.  Various members of Concerned Citizens Against the Pipeline (CCAP) in northern Hunterdon County began monitoring and investigating the site and have had heated discussions with the survey personnel and management companies.  PennEast reps were found to be test drilling in Highland protected water and fouling a nearby pond.

When asked if they had DEP permits to be running these test rigs they replied that they did not.

They were then questioned on what materials were being used in this test drilling.  They replied that it was only water, but it was found that the test rigs on Baldpate were using drilling oil.  A CCAP member on the scene reports:

I politely asked the geologist from Hatch where the water source was for the hoses, and that’s when things got uglier.  He said the pond.  I said I thought you weren’t discharging into the pond; he said we’re not.  I said what is that big stream off the drill that ‘s running back to the pond.

At this point, Western got in my face and stood between me and the Hatch geologist so I couldn’t speak to him anymore.  I explained to Western that they are drilling on flood plain which requires permits from DEP, which they said they did not grant.  I said that they are introducing contaminant into Highland waters which are protected against degradation and that this rig contaminated soil over the weekend.  That samples of the soil contaminant have been taken, and that our lawyer is currently collecting samples from the pond for analysis.  That we are submitting all this information to NJDEP and to the township.  John from Western Land Services said they would not be telling me who issued the permits, but we could probably find out from FERC.  I said we would find out from the township, and that our results from today will be reported to the DEP and to FERC.

There is also a question of whether PennEast secured permission from the property owner(s), and permits from the township and county for these test rigs.

As you can see momentum truly is building up against PennEast, and organizations against the pipeline are remaining vigilant and will not let PennEast sneak anything past them (and they try – boy do they try).  These latest actions from PennEast show exactly how little they can be trusted, and how eager they are despoil sensitive ecological areas with no care for the consequences.

You can’t see me but I’m standing up applauding right now for the people who have worked so hard to make these moments happen, and for elected officials such as Mr. Hughes for listening to their constituents and doing what is right.

eia.gov’s Natural Gas Weekly report continues to be a thorn in the side of pipeline companies like PennEast.

Last week’s entry heralded a new era where we reached historical lows in natural gas prices on key regional hubs:

http://www.eia.gov/naturalgas/weekly/archive/2015/07_09/index.cfm

According to the report:

Responding to robust supply, mild temperatures, and low holiday demand, several trading locations in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic regions set record low natural gas spot prices this past week, as prices fell well below $1 per million British thermal units (MMBtu) on July 2.

Following a cold and snowy winter, natural gas prices in the Northeast have been relatively low since April. Prices at Transcontinental Zone 6 New York (Transco Z6 NY) and Algonquin Citygate, with service to Boston, have averaged $2.43/MMBtu and $2.21/MMBtu, respectively, from April 1 through July 8. In New York, the average price over that period this year is 35% lower than the same period in 2014, and the average price in Boston is 50% lower this year compared to last year. Prices at the Algonquin Citygate reached a historic low on June 5, dropping to $1.19/MMBtu, and fell even lower, to 82¢/MMBtu, on July 2. Similarly, in New York, prices neared their historic low on June 5 at $1.38/MMBtu, and dropped to a record low 89¢/MMBtu on July 2. The July 2 spot price was for gas delivered July 3 through July 5 for the Fourth of July holiday weekend.

There are several factors contributing to the lower prices this year, including year-over-year growth in production, particularly from the Marcellus, and higher natural gas storage volumes.

Look at that, natural gas was 82 cents at the Boston gateway, and 89 cents at the NYC one. These numbers boggle the mind. Keep in mind that fracking companies need to sell their gas at about $4/MMBtu to generate a profit.

Take these numbers and plug them into PennEast’s Purpose and Need statements and you see, yet again, just how hollow PennEast’s words are.

There is literally no need for this pipeline in the region.