On May 15, 2014, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) prepared an environmental assessment for the Cove Point Liquefaction Project in Southern Maryland. The proposed project would allow Dominion Power to export approximately 5.75 million metric tons per annum of liquefied natural gas (LNG) via marine carriers that would dock at the existing offshore pier.
The “environmental assessment” prepared by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) of Dominion Power’s planned Cove Point Natural Gas Export Facility is deeply flawed, inadequate, and unacceptable. By concluding that Dominion’s proposal would have no “significant” overall impact on the environment, its authors have failed to recognize or evaluate the likely consequences of such a facility.
A clear consequence of converting the existing natural gas facility at Cove Point to an export facility will be to open the spigot of a delivery system to foreign countries. This will inevitably increase the overseas demand for our “cheap” natural gas, leading to more and more fracking (hydraulic fracturing) here at home to meet the burgeoning demand. The fact that the staff at FERC did not relate the facility at Cove Point to the “fracking process” and extrapolate the consequences is a fundamental flaw in the report. Evaluating the environmental impact of the Dominion Power Cove Point exporting facility without considering the environmental impacts of the “fracking process” and the accelerated growth of drilling on our environment and society is meaningless.
Once the facility is built and operational, the export valve will open and the fracking race will explode. Landscapes will be transformed with fracking wells and massive amounts of water, already a dwindling resource, will be wasted and poisoned. Creeks, rivers, and streams will be threatened. With natural gas deposits under the Chesapeake Bay, the temptation to drill will be significant and the forces to do so maybe overwhelming. The results could outstrip the horrible consequences of pollution from coal.
The assessment, in failing to even consider these enormously important consequences, lacks all credibility. Moreover, it smacks of an effort to placate the industry FERC is supposed to regulate rather than to protect the environment or the citizens living in the affected areas. A project of this size and scope, with its potential physical danger to citizens, and carrying the potentially devastating environmental risks associated with drilling, transportation, and preparation of natural gas for export, warrants and should require a full Environmental Impact Statement. And in this case, the assessment’s own inadequacies demand and underscore the necessity of performing the more comprehensive Environmental Impact Statement.
Moreover, several significant risks have been whitewashed or completely overlooked in this report. Some examples include, but are not limited to, the proximity of the facility to neighborhoods and public playgrounds, and the lack of emergency response capabilities. While the occurrence of a geological event such as an earthquake is remote, there is a dormant fault line nearby. A geological event remains a possibility, as the FERC assessment points out. The report leaves out remediation and damage assessment from a catastrophic event, thus rendering it incomplete.
This FERC report fails to responsibly carry out FERC’s mission as a government agency. It is neither independent nor objective. It is an incompetent evaluation of the project; not one upon which citizens can rely for their safety or for protection of the environment. At this stage, the project must be blocked.
From a larger perspective, government support of this project reflects the lack of a national energy policy. We have been a country concerned with energy independence for years. Now we have a resource that can provide that security for generations and we are rushing to sell it to the highest foreign bidder. The wiser course would be to keep the natural gas within our borders and use it sparingly to build a bridge to long-term sustainable energy options. Use it to give American workers cheaper energy and keep on reserve for national security.
We should not damage our future and risk significant environmental hazards by selling our nation’s long-term energy independence for short-term profits, especially in such a hasty and potentially harmful manner.
Jeffrey H. Horstman
Miles and Wye Riverkeeper
Midshore Riverkeeper Conservancy Inc.
Jim says
Heather Mizeur is the only candidate for governor opposed to the Cove Point plan. From her issue paper:”In fact, the terminal’s lifetime emissions would make it the state’s largest emitter of carbon dioxide ever; it would trigger more CO2 pollution than from all of our state’s coal-fired power plants combined.”
See: https://files.www.heathermizeur.com/MizeurCovePoint.pdf
Now breathe. While you can.
Katrina says
Who should one write/contact in opposition to
this proposal?
Jim says
http://www.stopcovepoint.org