Close
About
FAQ
Home
Collections
Login
USC Login
Register
0
Selected
Invert selection
Deselect all
Deselect all
Click here to refresh results
Click here to refresh results
USC
/
Digital Library
/
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
/
Natural gas and the Cove Point export terminal
(USC Thesis Other)
Natural gas and the Cove Point export terminal
PDF
Download
Share
Open document
Flip pages
Contact Us
Contact Us
Copy asset link
Request this asset
Transcript (if available)
Content
Natural Gas and the Cove Point Export Terminal
Samantha Page
A Thesis Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC GRADUATE SCHOOL
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
MASTER OF ARTS
(JOURNALISM)
December 2017
1
Table of Contents
Introduction…………………………………...2
The big fight…………………………………..3
Buying off the Maryland PSC……………….7
The natural gas boom……………………….9
Natural gas in a liveable climate…………...11
Fracking’s unintended consequences…….13
A changed point……………………………..16
Bibliography………………………………….18
2
~ Introduction ~
Lusby, MARYLAND – Drive just 90 minutes outside the nation’s capital and you can find Cove
Point, a tiny, bedroom community of 400 houses, at the end of a deadend road, overlooking the
Chesapeake Bay.
There are no malls here, just the beach.
Cove Point Road meanders less than four miles from the main road into Southern Maryland. For
decades, tucked back in amongst the dark evergreens and lush foliage, Cove Point’s view has
remained placid, including a run-down platform, 1,000 feet offshore, best known by local
fishermen as a landmark and an artificial reef.
But this outcropping of land and the community that calls it home are on the verge of a major
change, as outside forces from Ohio to Japan collaborate to upend the world’s energy supply.
That offshore platform is scheduled to soon be the departure point for trillions of gallons of liquid
natural gas (LNG), Dominion Energy’s Cove Point export terminal.
The plan for Cove Point is bitterly opposed by landowners and environmentalists alike. The
terminal is coming online despite a slew of lawsuits against the developer, the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, the Department of Energy, and the Maryland government. The Sierra
Club, Earthjustice, local environmental groups, and community organizers have spent hundreds
of hours fighting this project, which they say will ruin the local air and contribute to climate
change.
But Cove Point’s 59.5-acre liquefaction facility – where natural gas will be processed and
converted to LNG – is nearly built, and Dominion Energy, one of the largest integrated gas and
electricity companies in the country, is set begin shipping natural gas overseas by early next
year.
Natural gas production has undergone a massive boom in the past decade, largely from the
Marcellus basin, a shale formation under Ohio, Pennsylvania, New York, Maryland, and West
Virginia. Cove Point’s export terminal will be part of a web of infrastructure along the Eastern
Seaboard, with pipelines running up to Massachussets and down through the Carolinas. Much
of that infrastructure will power U.S. homes, but Cove Point is different. Its natural gas will be
shipped – the company estimates 80 tankers a year will come through – to India and Japan. In
fact, the Cove Point LNG terminal one of a slate of natural gas terminals in development, which
will boost the United States’ export capacity seven-fold by the end of 2019.
While it is almost certainly too late to stop Cove Point from going online, one remaining lawsuit
from the Sierra Club seeks to overturn the way the Department of Energy – and perhaps the
entire federal government – looks at the environmental impact of natural gas. Meanwhile,
activists and environmentalists elsewhere in the region hope to undermine the pipelines that will
supply Cove Point and render the whole project a $3.8-billion boondoggle.
3
~ The big fight ~
In 2014, dozens of activists were arrested
1
for blocking access to the Cove Point site. A year
later, two more protesters were arrested after climbing onto a construction crane. They hung a
sign saying,“Dominion get out. Don’t frack Maryland. No gas exports. Save Cove Point.”
The Cove Point export terminal is owned by Dominion Natural Resources, a subsidiary of
Dominion Energy, which owns drilling sites, pipelines, and power plants throughout the mid-
Atlantic. Dominion Energy is a $50-billion, Fortune 500 company that supplies electricity to
several Mid-Atlantic states and owns natural gas wells, pipelines, storage facilities, and power
plants.
The Cove Point liquefaction facility, which includes its own private power plant, compressors,
and storage tanks is just off Cove Point Road, about a mile and a half from the platform. (The
platform is accessible to people through an underwater tunnel, which is traversed via bicycle.
The liquified natural gas will travel via pipeline). Beginning in late 2017, more than 300 billion
cubic feet of natural gas from the basin will arrive at Cove Point each year. Some of it will be
diverted to the onsite power plant, which will provide electricity and the rest will be converted
into LNG.
Safety, health, and simple quality of life issues top resident concerns.
Leslie Garcia, one local resident opposing the development, said that Dominion was recently
venting something – the community wasn’t told what – from the facility. “It was loud enough to
be obnoxious,” Garcia said. “And I’m a mile-and-a-half away.”
Not only can she can hear the facility – she can see it. To get into her neighborhood, you have
to drive by the plant. And one of the first signs of development was what residents sometimes
call “the blast wall,” a 60-foot wall encircling Dominion’s property. In truth, the wall was ordered
for noise abatement during in the government’s environmental review, but it makes people
nervous. So do the stacks “towering” behind it, which have already begun spewing smoke and
steam on occasion.
Residents say that the 130-megawatt power plant and compressors are reason enough to stop
the project from built in their backyard. The compressor is a giant, gas-fired refrigerator, cooling
gas to less than -160ºC. It’s an energy intensive process, using roughly 10 percent of the gas
just to turn it into liquid. Residents say the sound will be equal to a “jet plane” and worry that
nitrogen dioxide – a compound that reacts to form ground-level ozone, also known as smog –
will diminish the neighborhood’s air quality. Smog has been linked to a number of health
problems, including asthma. Cove Point’s region is considered to be in “non-attainment” for the
1
Ayesha Rascoe, “Anti-fracking Protesters Arrested in U.S. Capital,” Reuters, July 14, 2014,
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-lng-protests-idUSKBN0FJ2F720140714.
4
EPA’s federal standards, largely due to pollution blowing in from other areas, but the
neighborhood itself has remained relatively free from these concerns, until now.
Garcia’s house is one of a cluster of homes that make up the quiet, wooded community. Her
parents bought property in the area nearly half a century ago, and she and her husband bought
their own house in the mid-1990s. At the time, she said, no one was worried about Dominion’s
offshore platform or its onshore storage tanks.
“People never thought about it. It was not an issue,” she said. “The facility that had been there
was basically mothballed.” At the time, the “facility” was really just a handful of LNG storage
silos and a connector to a local pipeline system. Only a few ships came through each year.
Now, Garvia worries that the neighborhood would be trapped if anything happened at the plant.
Dominion built a “safety exit” of sorts, a back road out of the community, but the gate is always
locked, Garcia said. Otherwise, there is only one road out of Cove Point, and it goes right past
the natural gas terminal.
“We must pass their entrance going in or out,” she said. “Should anything happen, it is really
problematic.”
For its part, a spokesperson for Dominion said “safety issues have been very fully vetted.”
“There are hundreds of monitoring devices and protective systems that would quickly shut down
all operations if conditions merited it, and we have highly trained, very experienced people at
the controls at all times,” Dominion spokesperson Karl Neddenien said in an email. He also
pointed out that the project would increase local tax revenue and provide “additional full-time
employment.”
Ironically, the project could mean improved air quality elsewhere in the Washington, D.C.
region. In its environmental assessment, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC)
determined that the company would be required to reduce nitrogen dioxide emissions across
their D.C. facilities by 1.3 times as much as the company emits in Cove Point.
Some people in the neighborhood say the plant also means more jobs and a better economy.
Up in D.C., construction workers can occasionally be spotted wearing “build Cove Point” T-
shirts. The local police force has been supportive, and Dominion has hired officers for extra
security duty.
Garcia is not convinced. She is a member of a local group, We Are Cove Point, that has been
pushing
2
Maryland Gov. Larry Hogan (R) to order a formal safety study, known as a
Quantitative Risk Assessment (QRA), which they believe would more fully consider the potential
2
“Where’s Our Safety Study? Sign the Petition Now,” We Are Cove Point, last modified May 21, 2017,
http://www.wearecovepoint.org/wheres-our-safety-study-sign-the-petition-now/.
5
for catastrophe and quantify the effects of pollution. The study would only be required at
Hogan’s discretion, making him the group’s last hope to prove to the world that Dominion is
doing something dangerous.
Earlier this summer, Hogan’s office said there would be no study.
“We’re still fighting. We’re still doing what we can,” Garcia said. On most Mondays this summer,
they protested, holding rallies outside the governor’s residence in Annapolis or staging
telephone campaigns. “Anything to get his attention.” She knows, though, that it’s unlikely
anything dramatic will happen to the project at this point.
Meanwhile, the Sierra Club, the country’s largest environmental group, is fighting the federal
government in court. While the group isn’t seeking to stop the Cove Point development any
longer, the suit could help the Sierra Club reach another goal: changing the way the federal
government looks at the environmental impact of fossil fuel projects.
Both FERC, which oversees interstate energy commerce, including pipelines and the electric
grid, and the Department of Energy, which permits the export of fossil fuels, including natural
gas and coal, approved the terminal. The Sierra Club sued them both.
In the only remaining legal challenge to the project, the Sierra Club is arguing that the
Department of Energy illegally failed to consider the upstream and downstream environmental
impacts of developing the export terminal. (Upstream refers to anything that happens before the
gas arrives at Cove Point, including extraction and transportation. Downstream refers to
anything that happens after it leaves the terminal, including shipping and, ultimately,
combustion.) The case, which is one of several challenging the Department of Energy’s
permitting process, has been fully briefed. Lawyers are awaiting a date for oral arguments in
front of the District Court of Appeals in Washington, D.C.
Nathan Matthews, who represents the Sierra Club, says that in the Department of Energy’s
economic analysis, it agreed the terminal would increase natural gas production, but in its
environmental analysis, it asserted that it did not. The Department of Energy acknowledged that
“Dominion’s application, and [the agency’s] approval thereof, both rest on the premise that LNG
exports will cause increases in domestic natural gas production,” according to court documents
filed by the Sierra Club. It would also push gas prices up – which would, in turn, increase coal
use domestically, another environmental impact that wasn’t properly analyzed.
According to the Department of Energy, “most of the additional natural gas needed for export
would be provided by increased domestic production with a minor contribution from increased
pipeline imports from Canada. The remaining portion of the increased export volumes would be
offset by decreases in consumption resulting from the higher prices associated with the
increased exports.”
6
The Energy Information Administration “projected that greater export levels would lead to
decreases in natural gas consumption. Most of this projected decrease would occur in the
electric power sector. Increased coal-fired generation accounts for about 65 percent of the
projected decrease in natural gas-fired generation,” the Department of Energy said in its
approval.
Neither the increased natural gas production nor the increase in coal use was included in the
department’s environmental analysis.
“That’s why we think DOE broke the law,” Matthews said. “We think the assertions they made
on the economic side did not line up with the environmental side.”
The Sierra Club also sued FERC for mishandling the environmental review. FERC was the so-
called lead agency on the environmental assessment, which is required under the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). In its analysis, FERC not only declined to consider upstream
and downstream effects, it went so far as to say that increases in natural gas production are not
“causally related” to the export terminal.
“A more specific analysis of Marcellus Shale upstream facilities is outside the scope of this
analysis because the exact location, scale, and timing of future facilities are unknown,” FERC
said in its environmental assessment
3
. “In addition, the potential cumulative impacts of
Marcellus Shale drilling activities are not sufficiently causally related to the project to warrant the
comprehensive consideration of those impacts in this [environmental assessment]. As such,
these projects were not included in our cumulative analysis.”
Other federal agencies have done these calculations, according to Matthews. “On some level
we are surprised and frustrated that we are having this fight, because this seems like an area
that we hope is pretty clear,” he said.
It might be hard to believe that there is no causal relationship between building a point of export
and providing the goods to be exported, but that is exactly the position of Dominion, which says
there is no way to know how the terminal will affect natural gas production – but it won’t be
much. “Dominion cannot speculate on the potential upstream impact other than to say it would
be minimal,” Neddenien said.
There is no question that the Cove Point export terminal is part of a larger system of natural gas
extraction, transportation, and combustion. Environmental groups have estimated that up to
3,000 fracking wells will be drilled in the Marcellus Basin because of this project.
3
“Environmental Assessment for the Cove Point Liquefaction Project,” Docket No. CP13-113-000,
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, May 2014,
https://www.ferc.gov/industries/gas/enviro/eis/2014/05-15-14-ea/ea.pdf.
7
Because it exists, gas that could otherwise been left in the ground will go overseas, the Sierra
Club argues. Put simply: “Adding pipeline infrastructure will increase our production and use of
natural gas,” Matthews said.
Under NEPA, the Sierra Club thinks FERC is required to consider the environmental impact of
fracking, of the pipelines running to Southern Maryland, and of displacing potentially new,
renewable energy development overseas in order to burn cheap natural gas. “[Other countries]
are going to reduce their investment in wind and solar,” the Sierra Club’s Nathan Matthews
pointed out.
In April 2016, after a hearing at the D.C. Circuit Court when environmental groups challenged
the FERC approvals, Earthjustice attorney Deborah Goldberg said, “They have to analyze the
impacts of the project as a whole.”
The court did not agree, ruling last July that construction on the terminal could continue.
In fact, federal courts have repeatedly ruled
4
that FERC doesn’t have to consider the upstream
effects of export projects, because exports are in the Department of Energy’s purview.
“The court was very clear in those cases that the reason it was ruling against those as
exclusively [the Department of Energy's] problem,” Matthews said.
It’s worth noting that in its ruling on FERC’s role, the court took pains to note that the petitioners
did not adequately raise the issue of connected actions. Under NEPA, the lead agency is
supposed to consider actions that would be triggered by or dependent on the project’s
implementation. As Matthews said, agencies are supposed to look at “the big picture.” And
although Matthews disagreed the issue wasn’t raised in last year’s litigation, he notes that the
court’s ruling opens the door to raising it again. “That is something we would be prepared to
litigate if it came up a second time,” he said.
~ Buying off the Maryland Public Service Commission ~
Of course, getting approval for a natural gas export facility is a multi-agency affair, and Cove
Point was not only challenged at the federal level. On the local side, state environmental
agencies issued water and right of way permits, and the local utility regulator had to issue a
permit typically reserved for electric companies.
“No proposal in history has presented as many negative impacts while creating no benefits for
Maryland residents,” Sean Canavan, a lawyer for the Accokeek, Mattawoman, Piscataway
Creeks Communities Council, said in a press release announcing a case against the Maryland
Public Service Commission, challenging its approval of the permit.
4
Sierra Club v. FERC, 827 F.3d 36, 47 (D.C. Cir. 2016).
8
To get PSC approval, it appears Dominion simply had to pay for the permit.
The PSC is not an environmental agency – or even a natural gas regulator. It is responsible for
permitting electricity plants. While it might seem like exporting natural gas has no connection to
Maryland’s electric grid, the generator required to power the Cove Point compressor is so large
that it qualifies as a power plant. (In fact, according to environmentalists, the power plant at the
Dominion Cove Point project will be the fourth-largest polluter in the state. The other top
polluters are all also power plants.)
In the PSC’s 2014 approval of Dominion’s application, the state acknowledged
5
that the project
“would not provide net benefits to Maryland citizens.” To make up for this lack of benefit, the
state required Dominion to pay $40 million over five years towards a fund for “the development
of renewable and clean energy resources, greenhouse gas mitigation, energy efficiency and
demand response programs.” The state also demanded $8 million over 20 years for a program
to “alleviate the impact on low-income customers from possible increases in gas prices resulting
from natural gas exports from the facility.”
“The commission recognized that the power plant didn’t provide enough benefits,” Canavan said
in an interview. “This is very different from the normal power plant application. Normal power
plants – no matter how bad they may be, no matter how much pollution they may cause – all
provide a benefit in that they are providing electricity to the community.”
Despite these arguments, in late 2016, a judge in the Maryland Court of Special Appeals ruled
against the community group.
“Legally, once the Maryland Court of [Special] Appeals decided against us, we didn’t have
recourse,” Canavan said.
There is some debate over whether exporting natural gas will drive up prices. Canavan’s group
– and the Maryland PSC – are not the only ones who think Cove Point might drive up gas prices
in the United States. A manufacturing trade association recently warned the White House that
exporting natural gas will result in higher prices for domestically-made goods.
But even a former official at the Department of Energy, who approved the project, said he didn’t
think that was true.
“Natural gas is a unique commodity because it is uniquely domestic,” said Christopher Smith, an
Obama-era deputy Secretary of Energy. “The factors that impact price are going to be locally
driven.”
5
Statement from the Maryland Public Service Commission on Order No. 86372, May 30, 2014,
http://www.psc.state.md.us/wp-content/uploads/Maryland-PSC-Conditionally-Approves-
Dominion-Cove-Point-Generating-Station.pdf.
9
~ The natural gas boom ~
Capturing and controlling energy – from the earliest discovery of fire to the newest Tesla – has
been perhaps the most important development in the history of human civilization.
“From a biophysical perspective, both prehistoric human evolution and the course of history can
be seen as the quest for controlling greater stores and flows of more concentrated and more
versatile forms of energy and converting them, in more affordable ways at lower costs and with
greater efficiencies, into heat, light, and motion,” writes Vaclav Smil in his new book, Energy and
Civilization
6
.
That quest can take on a nationalistic bent. “Our country is blessed with extraordinary energy
abundance, which we didn’t know of, even five years ago and certainly ten years ago,”
President Donald Trump said in a June speech marking the new administration’s “Energy
Week.”
“With these incredible resources, my administration will seek not only American energy
independence that we’ve been looking for so long, but American energy dominance. And we’re
going to be an exporter,” Trump said. “We will be dominant. We will export American energy all
over the world, all around the globe. These energy exports will create countless jobs for our
people, and provide true energy security to our friends, partners, and allies all across the globe.”
The resources Trump was talking about are oil, coal, and natural gas.
Oil has long powered our cars, but since the beginning of electrification coal has kept the lights
on. Electricity needs constant power, and coal has historically had three major advantages: It is
local, easy to get out of the ground, and stable, meaning you can dig it and transport it and store
it without much technological headache.
Natural gas (not to be confused with gasoline, which is the liquid petroleum product most cars
run on) is a naturally occurring, flammable, gaseous substance, made up primarily of methane.
Gas is not a liquid, so for shipping it is cooled, or compressed, to become LNG.
For decades, the United States has purchased natural gas from other countries, primarily
Trinidad and Tobago, Qatar, and Yemen
7
. Buying fuel from foreign, faraway places in order to
keep the lights on is not the most secure position. Buying fuel that leaks and explodes from
foreign distant places is even worse.
6
Vaclav Smil, Energy and Civilization: A history (Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press,
2017), 1.
7
U.S. Natural Gas Imports by Point of Entry, Energy Information Administration, last updated July 31,
2017, https://www.eia.gov/dnav/ng/NG_MOVE_POE1_A_EPG0_IML_MMCF_A.htm.
10
But mining coal has gotten harder over the years, literally and figuratively, as people have
hacked out the most accessible coal beds and the relative price of coal has fallen.
Simultaneously, the public has turned against it, as cities, towns, and entire countries have
grappled with toxic smog and chemical residue. Coal is dirty. It’s not only a mess to mine and to
burn, it is also the largest historical contributor to carbon dioxide emissions.
Until recently, using coal was the easiest and cheapest option, but there has been a change.
Consider this: Even though U.S. imports of LNG peaked nearly a decade ago, consumption has
continued to increase and prices have come down. That feat of economics is explained by
technological advancements in hydraulic fracturing, which were supported by the federal
government.
In 1975, the Department of Energy launched a research program in Appalachia to see how
much natural gas could be recovered, and between 1978 and 1992 the agency spent about
$137 million on the Eastern Gas Shale Program. These research efforts led to the development
and commercialization of horizontal drilling, a technique that allows drillers to go down from one
spot and then spread the drilling outward, tentacle-like, through shale a mile or more below
ground.
By the time President Barack Obama took office, the natural gas boom was well underway.
“American ingenuity and steady research have led to new ways to extract gas from shales,
making hundreds of trillions of cubic feet of gas technically recoverable where they once were
not,” reads a 2011 brochure from National Energy Technology Laboratory
8
. Even now, the
federal government offers research and tax support to the natural gas industry. In June, the
Department of Energy announced an additional $20 million grant for unconventional and
offshore drilling research.
It is hard to overstate the scale of the United States’ natural gas developments. In June 2017
9
,
the Marcellus shale basin – Pennsylvania, West Virginia, and Ohio – produced an average of 23
billion cubic feet of natural gas every day. Annually, that would be 8,395 billion cubic feet a year.
Eight and half trillion cubic feet. Fifty-seven cubic miles. A literal mountain of methane.
“The U.S. shale revolution shows no sign of running out of steam and its effects are now
amplified by a second revolution of rising LNG supplies,” said Fatih Birol, executive director of
the International Energy Agency. In July, his agency predicted that the United States would
8
Shale Gas: Applying Technology to Solve America’s Energy Challenges, The National Energy
Technology Laboratory, accessed August 28, 2017, https://www.netl.doe.gov/file%20library/research/oil-
gas/Shale_Gas_March_2011.pdf.
9
Natural Gas Gross Withdrawals and Production, Energy Information Administration, last updated July 31,
2017, https://www.eia.gov/dnav/ng/ng_prod_sum_a_EPG0_FGW_mmcf_m.htm.
11
provide a 5th of the world’s natural gas by 2022. Over the next five years, the United States will
account for 40 percent of the market’s growth
10
.
It is a striking reversal, not just for the world market, but for Cove Point, as well. In 2006, FERC
conditionally approved
11
an application from Dominion to increase imports at the Maryland site.
Before going to the Department of Energy in 2009, Smith was working for Chevron, trying to get
a permit to import natural gas to Texas. That project has also become an export terminal.
“We were in a different world then,” he said.
Now, 770 million cubic feet equivalent of LNG will be shipped from Cove Point every day. (LNG
can be measured in gallons, but for consistency’s sake, we will refer to LNG by its pre-
condensed, gaseous state cubic foot measurement.) That’s 281 billion cubic feet each year.
Another 31 billion cubic feet will be used to in the power plant. (again, value in what it delivers-
enough to power a small a city for ??? How much in export value?)
The goal of the Cove Point project is “producing much-needed clean energy for two overseas
allies – Japan and India – while bringing economic benefits to the local community, Maryland,
and the U.S.” Dominion’s Neddenien said.
~ Natural gas in a liveable climate ~
But the definition of clean energy might be flexible. “We are permanently in a world marching
toward a clean energy economy,” Smith said.
“Consistent with the Obama administration’s desire to consider greenhouse emissions in
regulatory decisions, we looked at the full value chain impact of LNG on the environment, and
essentially there are some gives and takes to LNG.” He said. “It’s a much lower source of
emissions than coal, which it tends to displace.” But he acknowledged that natural gas is
intended to be a “bridge,” not a destination.
Just seven months after Smith signed the Department of Energy's final approvals for the Cove
Point terminal, nearly every country agreed to try to limit global warming to 2ºC (3.6ºF). Under
the Paris Climate Accord, widely considered the last, best hope to avoid the “most catastrophic
effects” of climate change, the United States pledged to reduce its emissions by 26 to 28
percent below 2005 levels by 2025. One part of the plan was to reduce methane. Invisible and
10
IEA sees global gas demand rising to 2022 as US drives market transformation, International Energy
Agency, July 13, 2017, https://www.iea.org/newsroom/news/2017/july/iea-sees-global-gas-demand-rising-
to-2022-as-us-drives-market-transformation.html.
11
FERC staff issues Final Environmental Impact Statement on Dominion Cove Point Expansion Project
(Docket Nos. CP05-310-000 et al.), Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, April 28, 2006,
https://www.ferc.gov/industries/gas/enviro/eis/2006/04-28-06-eis-cove.asp.
12
odorless, methane is a potent greenhouse gas, trapping heat 86 times more effectively than
carbon dioxide over a 20-year span. Natural gas is 80 percent pure methane.
“At this time,” the country’s official, Obama-era pledge read, “Under the Clean Air Act, the
United States Environmental Protection Agency is developing standards to address methane
emissions from landfills and the oil and gas sector.”
That time has passed. This spring, President Donald Trump announced that the United States
would withdraw from the Paris accord, and the EPA is trying to throw out the Obama-era rules
on methane emissions from the oil and gas sector. Repealing the methane rules were a key
priority for the American Petroleum Industry, which represents both oil and gas developers who
have benefited from the fracking boom. Rather than funding clean energy for developing
nations, another Paris commitment, the country is expected to provide financing for new natural
gas plants, further driving demand. The White House now broadly supports all fossil fuel
extraction.
Natural gas proponents will argue that exporting natural gas, from facilities like Cove Point to
foreign countries, will help those countries get off coal and pollute less, since natural gas emits
slightly more than half as much carbon dioxide equivalent when it is burned. But it won’t be
enough.
“If you could snap your fingers and completely displace coal generation with natural gas, it
doesn’t get you to where you need to get to,” Smith, now at Rice University's James A. Baker III
Institute for Public Policy, said. “But these are steps in the right direction. Those immediate
reductions are important - because there is an important cumulative impact that you have.
Reducing them in the near term is in fact important,” he said.
Climate scientists’ projections suggest that the world needs to reduce emissions dramatically
and rapidly – within the next few decades – to avoid 2ºC or more of warming. The longer we
wait, the more rapidly that reduction will have to occur.
Environmentalists take the postion that making natural gas readily available means people will
continue to choose gas over other energy sources, creating long-term dependence where we
need dramatic action. If U.S. exports are making natural gas more readily available, installing
solar and wind is less attractive.
According to Smith, the Department of Energy considered all of this for the Cove Point
application.
“We looked at impact on businesses and families. We looked at impact on natural gas prices,
we looked at environmental issues, we looked at international issues, we looked at job creation,
we looked at economic effect, we looked at balance of trade… there was a long list of things
that we looked at,” said Smith.
13
“We were able to demonstrate that the entire net [emissions] effect of the LNG export was going
to be a negative,” he said.
But “net effect” means different things, depending on how broadly you cast your net. A 2016
report
12
by Oil Change International, a group that opposes fossil fuel development, found that
new pipeline projects in the mid-Atlantic – including those running to Cove Point – will cause
116 trillion cubic feet of additional gas to be produced by 2050.
If the natural gas projects proposed were all developed, the United States would not have been
able to hit its commitments under the Paris accord, the report found. Of course, the United
States has since declared it is withdrawing from the agreement.
“The currently planned gas production expansion in Appalachia would make meeting U.S.
climate goals impossible, even if the [Obama] administration’s newly proposed methane rules
are successful in reducing methane leakage by 45 percent,” the report says. “Our calculations
show that the rise in gas consumption projected by the EIA would alone lead to emissions that
would surpass the current long-term U.S. climate target by 2040, even after accounting for
methane leakage cuts.”
~ Fracking’s unintended consequences ~
Fracking is not that different from other ways of recovering underground liquids and gases: You
start by drilling a hole in the ground. Unlike drilling in an oil reservoir, which is similar to an
underground lake or aquifer, in hydraulic fracturing the natural gas or oil is trapped in shale.
Large volumes of water pumped down the well at high pressure, breaking up (fracturing) the
shale and releasing the natural gas or oil. Fracking is remarkably effective, but questions remain
about its environmental impact.
Two states that have Marcellus shale assets, New York and Maryland, have banned fracking.
To them, the benefit of fracking – cheap natural gas and jobs laying pipelines or drilling wells –
comes at too great a cost. Fracking has been linked to earthquakes in California, Oklahoma,
and Pennsylvania, but the biggest concern is usually tied to water use, water contamination,
and water disposal. Cove Point’s natural gas will be fracked in Pennsylvania, West Virginia, and
Ohio, before it is piped across Pennsylvania and Maryland.
In 2005, then-Vice President Dick Cheney shepherded the so-called Halliburton Rule (part of
the Energy Policy Act) through Congress. The rule exempts fracking from some provisions of
the Clean Water Act and allows hydraulic fracturing operations to keep the content of their
drilling water confidential, which scientists say makes it even more difficult to determine when
12
Lorne Stockman, A Bridge Too Far: How Appalachian Basin Gas Pipeline Expansion Will Undermine
U.S. Climate Goals, (Oil Change International, 2016), 4,
http://priceofoil.org/content/uploads/2016/08/bridge_too_far_report_v6.3.pdf.
14
wastewater is leaching into drinking water supplies. As the name suggests, hydraulic fracturing
uses a lot of water – millions of gallons per well – which has been treated with a chemical
mixture and sand. The wastewater also can carry heavy metals and salts to the surface.
In 2015, researchers from the University of Texas at Arlington found elevated levels of heavy
metals, such as mercury and arsenic, in water samples from drinking wells near fracking
operations. Mercury and arsenic are toxic. "These data do not necessarily identify [oil and gas]
activities as the source of contamination; however, they do provide a strong impetus for further
monitoring and analysis of groundwater quality in this region as many of the compounds we
detected are known to be associated with [fracking] techniques,” the scientists wrote.
13
In 2016, the U.S. Geological Survey determined that fracking wastewater was leaching into a
river in West Virginia. Along with the contamination, scientists found “a decreased microbial
level,” suggesting that even in small amounts, wastewater is not good for living organisms.
14
While some of the chemicals carried by the wastewater are known cancer agents, such as
benzene, even naturally occurring elements such as salt can affect wildlife and make water non-
potable.
And that’s just the fracking part. Once the gas has been extracted from the ground, it must get
to a power plant or an export terminal. Right now, thousands of miles of pipeline are planned for
the Mid-Atlantic. One of them, the Atlantic Sunrise Pipeline, is intended to serve much of Cove
Point’s demand.
There isn’t as much of a problem with pipelines leaking natural gas – unless, of course, they
rupture – but they still can damage the environment, particularly during construction. Tim
Spiece, a landowner in Lancaster County, said the route for Atlantic Sunrise was originally
intended to run through a nearby nature conservancy. Now it goes through an orchard.
Building the Atlantic Coast Pipeline, another Dominion project that runs from the Marcellus
shale to North Carolina, will mean destroying 38 miles of ridgeline in the Appalachian mountains
in West Virginia and Virginia. (Pipelines generally have about a 125-foot wide footprint.)
13
Zacariah L. Hildenbrand et al, “A Comprehensive Analysis of Groundwater Quality in the Barnett Shale
Region,” Environmental Science & Technology. 2015, 49 (13), pp 8254–8262.
14
Alejandro Davila Fragoso, “Scientists Just Pinpointed Another Example Of Fracking’s Environmental
Impact,” ThinkProgress, May 11, 2016, https://thinkprogress.org/scientists-just-pinpointed-another-
example-of-frackings-environmental-impact-552b17ffd26c.
15
15
In Ohio, another developer, Energy Transfer Partners (ETP) was ordered to stop construction
on its Rover pipeline, running from southeast Ohio to Michigan, after it illegally dumped drilling
material into what the state considered a “pristine” wetland. (ETP is also the company
responsible for the Dakota Access oil pipeline, which prompted massive protests by the
Standing Rock Sioux Tribe last winter.) The drilling fluid was mostly mud, but it had traces of
diesel mixed in, which is illegal. FERC pulled the company’s construction permit after the Ohio
Environmental Protection Agency complained, but it’s likely the commission was already
annoyed with ETP. Just a few weeks earlier, FERC found out that the company had purchased
– and razed – a historic farmhouse.
Nearly every pipeline project ever proposed has been given powers of eminent domain, but
lately developers have also demanded access to private property for surveys, further angering
landowners. Farmers in Pennsylvania are protesting the pipeline, because Dominion is cutting
through their land. Mark Clatterbuck, a Lancaster County resident and a professor of religion at
Montclair State University in New Jersey, has been leading local opposition, including the
construction of encampments along the proposed route.
“We built these structures right in the pipeline path,” he said. Already the Atlantic Sunrise
pipeline has been delayed
16
over a year, meaning that when Cove Point goes online, it will have
to cobble supply together from other carriers.
Leslie Garcia, the Cove Point resident, sympathizes with the pipeline opponents. “They’re
exactly the same [problems] we are having – when you’re just being bulldozed by a company
that’s so big.”
Natural gas is piped all over the country, and by and large, the public doesn’t pay much
attention to it.
15
New Data: Atlantic Coast Pipeline Would Trigger Mountaintop Removal, accessed August 28, 2017,
http://chesapeakeclimate.org/wp/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/Fact-sheet-Mountaintop-Removal-to-Build-
ACP.pdf.
16
Matthew Hoza, “In Search of Gas: Cove Point and the Atlantic Seaboard,” BTU Analytics, May 19,
2017,
https://btuanalytics.com/search-gas-cove-point-atlantic-seaboard/.
16
During the 90-day public comment period for the Atlantic Sunrise pipeline environmental review,
203 people testified at FERC’s public meetings and the agency “received over 560 written
comment letters from federal, state, and local agencies; tribes; companies/organizations; and
individuals.” In contrast, a proposal to reduce the size of Bears Ears National Park received 1.4
million comments in just 15 days.
Sometimes, though, infrastructure demands attention.
In 2010, a natural gas pipeline in San Bruno, California exploded
17
, killing eight people and
destroying 38 homes. Five years later, another person was killed
18
when a pipeline exploded in
Bakersfield, California. When a natural gas storage well burst in Los Angeles in late 2015,
residents complained of headaches, nosebleeds, and other health impacts. They also began to
fear the giant facility in their backyard.
~ A changed point ~
Those dangers – leaks, explosions – are what worry the people of Cove Point. “Calvert County
is not equipped to deal with this,” Garcia said at a meeting with other anti-pipeline advocates in
early 2016. “It’s been really disturbing.”
According to Dominion’s spokesperson, though, building the export terminal will benefit the local
environment.
“There are a number of environmental benefits that come from our project, benefits that would
not have occurred if the project were not being built,” Neddenien said in an email. “Dominion's
environmental mitigation activities include planting more than 15 acres of trees to replace those
removed by construction, at a ratio of 2:1; placing additional forest land in perpetual
preservation, and developing a 4-acre oyster bar in the Patuxent River where Dominion built a
temporary pier to receive equipment for the project. All permanent construction for the
liquefaction project at the Dominion Cove Point facility is inside the fence in the existing 131-
acre industrial area.”
Moreover, “the economic benefits include $40 million in new local property taxes, protecting
another $14 million already being paid,” he said.
17
“Pacific Gas and Electric Company Natural Gas Transmission Pipeline Rupture and Fire, San Bruno,
California, September 9, 2010,” National Transportation Safety Board, August 2011,
https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/Reports/PAR1101.pdf.
18
Steven Mayer, J.W. Burch IV, James Burger, and John Cox, “One dead and three injured in PG&E
natural gas line explosion southwest of Bakersfield,” Bakersfield.com, November 13, 2013,
http://www.bakersfield.com/news/one-dead-and-three-injured-in-pg-e-natural-gas/article_98f3c442-fef3-
541a-a2d6-fc77f6e22b00.html.
17
Back in February, an organization called Earthworks documented emissions already coming
from the plant. They posted an extensive list
19
of pollutants, along with the potential symptoms
and outcomes of exposure. Dominion is legally allowed to emit all of them.
Garcia knows these are what her community will face in the coming years. Construction on the
Cove Point terminal is nearly finished. Even if the Atlantic Sunrise pipeline can be stopped,
Dominion will find other ways to bring gas from the mountains to the coast.
“It is with resignation and dread that we recognize this is going to happen,” Garcia said. “It’s sort
of this great sadness.”
For now, the Sierra Club will wait for the court to schedule a hearing on its case against the
Department of Energy. Dominion will begin piping gas to Southern Maryland, and everyone will
hope disaster doesn’t strike.
19
“Emissions found coming from Dominion Cove Point right now!”, We Are Cove Point, Febuary 26,
2017, http://www.wearecovepoint.org/emissions-found-coming-from-dominion-cove-point-right-now/.
18
~ Bibliography ~
Canavan, Sean. Interview. By Samantha Page. 23 March 2017.
Clatterbuck, Mark. Interview. By Samantha Page. 14 February 2017.
Davila Fragoso, Alejandro. “Scientists Just Pinpointed Another Example Of Fracking’s
Environmental Impact.” 11 May 2016. ThinkProgress.
“Environmental Assessment for the Cove Point Liquefaction Project.” May 2014. Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission. Docket No. CP13-113-000.
https://www.ferc.gov/industries/gas/enviro/eis/2014/05-15-14-ea/ea.pdf. Accessed 5
September 2017.
“FERC staff issues Final Environmental Impact Statement on Dominion Cove Point Expansion
Project.” 28 April 2006. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. Docket Nos. CP05-
310-000 et al.
Garcia, Leslie. Interview. By Samantha Page. 8 August 2016.
Goldberg, Deborah. Interview. By Samantha Page. 19 April 2016.
Hildenbrand,
1
Zacariah L. et al. “A Comprehensive Analysis of Groundwater Quality in the
Barnett Shale Region.” 2015. Environmental Science & Technology. 49 (13).
Hoza, Matthew. “In Search of Gas: Cove Point and the Atlantic Seaboard.” 19 May 2017. BTU
Analytics. https://btuanalytics.com/search-gas-cove-point-atlantic-seaboard/. Accessed 1
September 2017.
Hughes, W. Kevin, et al. Statement from the Maryland Public Service Commission on Order No.
86372. 30 May 2014. Maryland Public Service Commission.
http://www.psc.state.md.us/wp-content/uploads/Maryland-PSC-Conditionally-Approves-
Dominion-Cove-Point-Generating-Station.pdf. Accessed 21 May 2017.
“IEA sees global gas demand rising to 2022 as US drives market transformation.” July 13, 2017.
International Energy Agency. https://www.iea.org/newsroom/news/2017/july/iea-sees-
global-gas-demand-rising-to-2022-as-us-drives-market-transformation.html. Accessed
14 July 2017.
Matthews, Nathan. Interviews. By Samantha Page. 16 September 2016 and 27 July 2017.
Mayer, Steven; Burch IV, J.W.; Burger, James; and Cox, John. “One dead and three injured in
PG&E natural gas line explosion southwest of Bakersfield.” 13 November 2013.
19
Bakersfield.com. http://www.bakersfield.com/news/one-dead-and-three-injured-in-pg-e-
natural-gas/article_98f3c442-fef3-541a-a2d6-fc77f6e22b00.html.
“Pacific Gas and Electric Company Natural Gas Transmission Pipeline Rupture and Fire, San
Bruno, California, September 9, 2010.” 2011. National Transportation Safety Board.
https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/Reports/PAR1101.pdf. Accessed
21 May 2017.
Natural Gas Gross Withdrawals and Production.” 31 July 2017. Energy Information
Administration.
https://www.eia.gov/dnav/ng/ng_prod_sum_a_EPG0_FGW_mmcf_m.htm. Accessed 28
August 2017.
Neddenien, Karl R. “Re: REPORTER REQUEST – Cove Point Development.” Message to
Samantha Page. 27 September 2016. Email.
“New Data: Atlantic Coast Pipeline Would Trigger Mountaintop Removal.” April 2017.
Chesapeake Climate Action Network. http://chesapeakeclimate.org/wp/wp-
content/uploads/2017/04/Fact-sheet-Mountaintop-Removal-to-Build-ACP.pdf. Accessed
28 August 2017.
Rascoe, Ayesha. “Anti-fracking Protesters Arrested in U.S. Capital.” Reuters. 14 July 2014.
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-lng-protests-idUSKBN0FJ2F720140714.
“Shale Gas: Applying Technology to Solve America’s Energy Challenges.” March 2011. The
National Energy Technology Laboratory. Department of Energy.
https://www.netl.doe.gov/file%20library/research/oil-gas/Shale_Gas_March_2011.pdf.
Accessed 28 August 2017.
Sierra Club v. FERC. 827 F.3d 36, 47. United States Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia. 2016.
Smith, Christopher. Interview. By Samantha Page. 15 May 2017.
Spiece, Tim. “Resisting LNG Exports from Dominion Cove Point.” 7 January 2016. Discussion.
Stockman, Lorne. “A Bridge Too Far: How Appalachian Basin Gas Pipeline Expansion Will
Undermine U.S. Climate Goals.” 2016. Oil Change International.
http://priceofoil.org/content/uploads/2016/08/bridge_too_far_report_v6.3.pdf. Accessed
21 July 2016.
We Are Cove Point. “Where’s Our Safety Study? Sign the Petition Now.” 18 June 2016.
http://www.wearecovepoint.org/wheres-our-safety-study-sign-the-petition-now/.
Accessed 21 May 2017.
Abstract (if available)
Abstract
Dominion Energy's Cove Point natural gas export terminal is the outcome of years of support for developing support for fracking in the Marcellus shale basin. But the project, set to go online in 2018, comes at a cost. The local community has fought against Dominion for years, saying the pollution costs are too high. Meanwhile, climate activists point to the long term effects of the project and the billions of cubic feet of natural gas the United States plans to ship overseas.
Linked assets
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
Conceptually similar
PDF
Hydraulic fracturing and social media: getting the “fracking” message across
PDF
Oblivion: a journey into America's overdose crisis
PDF
Read my voice: a documentary
PDF
Mental health in the NBA
PDF
The battle to end smog
PDF
On the streets, online: a netnographic study of homelessness and social media
PDF
Medical malpractice damage caps block access to justice in California
PDF
Bridges to survival: journalism's duty to bring environmental and wildlife reporting into mainstream media during the Anthropocene
PDF
Tired of being tired
PDF
Get @ me: comedy in the age of social media
PDF
The convergence of investor relations and public relations: fitting investor relations into the overall corporate communications strategy
PDF
Meet the millennials: on the spirituality fence
PDF
Managing professional athletes’ and sports team owners’ reputation in times of crisis: why it’s necessary to follow these crisis communication and public relations techniques
PDF
The C word: managing crisis in the modern media landscape
PDF
Historical ecology of the Split Oak Forest in east central Florida
PDF
Evolution in the processed foods industry: exploring the impact of the health foods movement
PDF
Latino voices from the infinite city: Raquel Gutiérrez and Rubén Martínez
PDF
The evolution of Naturity.org
PDF
Reputation management: golf's answer to participation woes
PDF
The not so invisible veil
Asset Metadata
Creator
Page, Samantha
(author)
Core Title
Natural gas and the Cove Point export terminal
School
Annenberg School for Communication
Degree
Master of Arts
Degree Program
Journalism
Publication Date
09/26/2017
Defense Date
09/26/2017
Publisher
University of Southern California
(original),
University of Southern California. Libraries
(digital)
Tag
Cove Point,fracking,natural gas,OAI-PMH Harvest
Language
English
Contributor
Electronically uploaded by the author
(provenance)
Advisor
Mittelstaedt, Alan (
committee chair
), Parks, Michael (
committee member
), Sender, Stuart (
committee member
)
Creator Email
samdpage@gmail.com
Permanent Link (DOI)
https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c40-436567
Unique identifier
UC11265313
Identifier
etd-PageSamant-5778.pdf (filename),usctheses-c40-436567 (legacy record id)
Legacy Identifier
etd-PageSamant-5778.pdf
Dmrecord
436567
Document Type
Thesis
Rights
Page, Samantha
Type
texts
Source
University of Southern California
(contributing entity),
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
(collection)
Access Conditions
The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...
Repository Name
University of Southern California Digital Library
Repository Location
USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA
Tags
Cove Point
fracking
natural gas