The Lawrence, MA Pipeline Explosions

20180914_Marcellus Shale Update

On January 11, 1912, women weavers shut down the Everett Mill in Lawrence, Massachusetts.  Earlier that day, they opened their pay envelopes to find their wages cut by 4%.

A recently enacted Massachusetts law had reduced the workweek for women and children from 56 hours to 54. Mill owners reacted by cutting the pay of their already lowly-paid workers.  The women revolted.

The strike soon engulfed the city.  Workers slashed machine belts, threads and cloth. Mill owners hired strike breakers and militiamen.  That only ratcheted up the tension.

Known in history as the “Bread and Roses Strike”, the bitter work stoppage lasted nine weeks.  When it was over, Congressional hearings had galvanized the public against the working conditions allowed by the owners, and the workers gained a 15% pay raise.  The political earthquake would be one of the seminal moments of the American labor movement.

A century later, a more literal earthquake in Lawrence, Massachusetts may portend a seminal movement for the natural gas industry.

Just three days after a gas pipeline exploded in Western Pennsylvania, at least 70 explosions tore through a Columbia Gas pipeline in Lawrence.  Fires broke out throughout the city.  One person is dead, at least twelve are injured, and 60-100 homes burned.  A large geographic area around Lawrence has been evacuated.

It is far too early to tell what caused the explosions, but certain things are clear.

First, our national infrastructure is deplorable.  Decades of disinvestment leave us with power lines, electrical grids, roads, airports and bridges that would embarrass a third world country.  The nation is falling apart.

Second, it is the responsibility of the owners of natural gas pipelines to ensure their safety.  That means adequately maintaining lines that already exist, properly building new pipelines, and informing the authorities when pipelines begin to decay or show damage.

Third, pipelines carrying pressurized gas are inherently dangerous.  To deny that is to deny reality.  It is up to the owners of the pipelines to show that they are safe, and not up to the public to show they are not.

Fourth, “renewable energy” will not solve this transmission problem.  Solar and wind power can create electricity, but it takes high-tension lines to transmit it.  To those who propose offshore solar and wind as a major source of the nation’s power, imagine the situation in the Carolinas right now if they obtained a significant amount of their power through offshore solar and wind farms transmitted by high-tension lines.  Even inland, think about the aftermath of Hurricane Florence in a “renewable energy’ world.  How many of those solar and wind installations would survive intact, and what would be the result of the storm on the transmission lines?  For how long would the area be unlivable?

Fifth, given modern political realities, the natural gas industry in the Northeast could be in serious trouble.  It must get a handle on its pipeline situation.  Andrew Cuomo defeated Cynthia Nixon in the New York Gubernatorial primary, but Nixon pushed Cuomo even further to the left than before.  With two pipelines blowing up in four days, what chance does the industry have of convincing the public or political leaders that natural gas pipelines are a good idea?

For the last decade, gas industry workers have produced an energy revolution in the Marcellus Region.  Whole parts of Pennsylvania, Ohio and West Virginia that faced economic depression have been revitalized; the grip on our economic lifeline of tyrannical regimes in the Middle East, Africa, South America and Russia has been broken.  American consumers throughout the country have saved tens of billions in energy costs.

All of that will be at risk if the gas industry doesn’t get serious about policing its own.  The boards of directors of our major gas producers should think about the tens of billions of dollars in investment they’ve made in our region.  Are they prepared to see it vanish because they refused to hold the pipeline companies to the highest standards of construction and maintenance?  If they abdicate their responsibility at this most delicate moment, they will have only themselves to blame.

Questions? Let Dan know.

Daniel Markind of Flaster Greenberg

Daniel Markind is a shareholder at Flaster Greenberg PC with over 35 years of experience as a real estate and corporate transactional attorney. He has represented individuals and companies in the energy industry for over 20 years. Dan is a frequent lecturer on Marcellus Shale and other mineral extraction issues and is regularly asked to speak at conferences, in the media and at other venues regarding energy issues and their legal and political implications.

Marcellus Shale Update – 7.3.2018

As we approach Independence Day, the disconnect between what is reported in the press and what the world situation actually is remains very curious.

Today, speaking on MSNBC’s Morning Joe, host Joe Scarborough and Council of Foreign Relations President Richard Haass bemoaned the fact that President Donald Trump is eviscerating the post-World War II order and not replacing it with anything.  Haass said we voluntarily are giving up our international position of primacy.  One wonders if Mr. Haass has spent much time looking at Nord Stream 2, the gas pipeline from Russia to Germany through the Baltic Sea, bypassing Ukraine, Russia and the Baltic States.

The effect of this pipeline will be to give Russia greater control over Europe’s energy supply.  It will enrich Putin, remove any control or payment that these other countries would have received, and make German Chancellor Angela Merkel even more subservient to Russia.  Ukraine for example, may lose 2% of its GDP as a result of the loss of trans-shipment payments.

Trump, who according to Morning Joe and much of the Western press is a Russian stooge, adamantly opposes the pipeline.  The Trump Administration is going so far as to have Secretary of State Mike Pompeo announce that the United States has made it clear that Russia should not be allowed to get more opportunities to exert political influence not only in Germany, but also in Europe in general, if Nord Stream 2 is implemented.  The current Administration has threatened to sanction any company involved in the project.

None of this has stopped Merkel, ostensibly the leader of the country blazing the trail toward a “green economy”.  She is determined to get this pipeline built, increase her dependency on Putin’s energy and rely more fully on Russian gas production from environmentally sensitive areas of the Arctic.

All of this sounds upside down, doesn’t it?  Indeed yesterday Estonia’s Minister of Foreign Affairs Sven Mikser said it is in the EU’s best interests to stop the project as it serves Russian geopolitical interest.  Earlier today, the German environmental group Nabu filed a lawsuit with Germany’s highest constitutional court asking to halt the pipeline.

Supporters of the project say that Nord Stream 2 will give Germany access to a cleaner form of energy than it currently uses.  That this might be so shows how dirty Germany’s current power supply is.  Despite refusing to greenlight any power project that is not “renewable” this decade (or perhaps because of this), Germany remains highly dependent on a very dirty form of coal called “lignite”.

Why then, is the Trump Administration, which according to many press reports (a) is in the pocket of Putin, (b) doesn’t care about the environment and (c) is willing to tear apart the old European alliance, so opposed to this pipeline?  Even if its only concerns are geopolitical and economic, the fact that the Administration is opposed to Nord Stream 2 shows that something is missing from the national debate.  A Putin puppet would just go along.  Instead the United States is taking a remarkably hard line.  Nowhere, however, is this nuance reflected in the press.

The topic of energy encompasses so many facets of our modern political debate, from geo-political power to environmentalism to future economic growth, that these stories have to be part of the discussion.  Trump may be secretly aligned with Putin.  None of us really knows.  The fact though that the Trump Administration is fighting so hard against Putin’s interests in this critical field is a story that needs to be told.  Each reader or listener then can draw his/her own conclusions.  It certainly may not show that Trump is an environmentalist, but it argues against the idea that he’s in Putin’s pocket.

Why Scarborough, Haass, the rest of MSNBC, CNN and even Fox News  fail to report on Nord Stream 2 remains mystifying.  It only increases the level of suspicion and derision with which the American press is held.

Questions? Let Dan know.

Marcellus Shale Update – 3.10.2018

There are two huge stories playing out in the Marcellus region right now.  Each, however, will take a little background to understand.

Story Number 1 involves the continued problems for the Mariner East pipelines.  On Wednesday the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission shut down the Mariner East 1 pipeline after sinkholes developed in West Whiteland Township, Chester County.  That morning the PUC Board of Investigation and Enforcement petitioned the PUC Chair for an immediate halt of the shipping of highly volatile fuels through the Mariner East 1 pipeline.  In the afternoon, facing immense public pressure, the PUC Chair issued an emergency order stopping “the continued flow of hazardous liquids through the ME1 pipeline without the proper steps to ensure the integrity of the pipelines (which) could have catastrophic results impacting the public.”

In its report, the PUC Board of Investigation and Enforcement stated that without proper review, and in light of three sinkholes developing in the Mariner East 1 pipeline area right near the site of Mariner East 2 construction, the pipeline is “potentially hazardous to the life, property and/or the environment.”

On Thursday, Democratic Pennsylvania State Senator Andy Dinniman, a constant critic of the energy industry, asked that the Mariner East 2 pipeline, which has been suspended numerous times, be shut down.  Yesterday, Dinniman’s call was joined by Republican State Senator Duane Milne of Chester County (who represents my district).  Milne issued a public statement in which he said he “is outraged that further work on this route even can be contemplated, as significant sinkholes continue to erupt along the pipeline path.”

For background, Mariner East 1 was built in the 1930s to take oil products from Marcus Hook, on the Delaware River south of Philadelphia, west across the rest of the state.  It has a capacity of carrying the equivalent of approximately 70,000 barrels of gas (liquid propane and ethane) a day.  Following the shale revolution, Sunoco Logistics reversed the flow of the pipeline to allow for gas to flow from the Marcellus region of Southwestern Pennsylvania to Marcus Hook, where it can be sent to other domestic customers or exported overseas.

Mariner East 2 is a much bigger pipe with a capacity of approximately 250,000 barrels/day and is being built mostly in the same right of way parallel to Mariner East 1.  The fear is that the drilling of Mariner East 2 may have disturbed the ground, causing the sinkholes.  This is made more possible by the fact that the geology of the region includes large amounts of karst, which sits on old limestone formations and is susceptible to sinkholes.

In times like these, the affected pipeline company needs to rely on its reputation, good will and common sense to work out a proper plan with the PUC and the State as a whole.  Unfortunately, the way Sunoco Logistics has gone about this process from Day 1 indicates that all three are in short supply.  If the State believes a complete reboot of this project is not needed, let’s hope that at least a reboot of Sunoco Logistics’ modus operandi is and has taken place.

Story Number 2 comes from West Virginia, where last week the West Virginia Legislature voted overwhelmingly to prevent oil and gas producers from deducting post-production costs that have the effect of reducing the royalty amount received by a landowner below the statutory 12.5%.  To get an appreciation of public sentiment on this, the vote in the West Virginia Senate was 34-0 and in the House it was 96-2.  The bill now sits on Governor Jim Justice’s desk for signature.  Justice is a Republican but it’s hard to see how he can veto a bill that passed with such overwhelming majorities in both chambers.

This West Virginia bill comes following a decision in the West Virginia Supreme Court in the case of Leggett v. EQT Production, which was published in May 2017.  In Leggett, the Court stunningly reversed its own prior ruling by agreeing  in 2017 that EQT had acted properly in deducting post-production costs incurred by the company after the gas hit the wellhead and before it could be sold.  The action by the legislature both places West Virginia back in the “marketable product” realm of states but also is a huge repudiation of the State’s Supreme Court.

As background, nearly all energy states have laws requiring that a landowner be compensated for any oil or gas taken from his/her property in an amount not less than 12.5% of the value received for the oil or gas.  That is only the starting point, however, for the energy industry says it should have the right to deduct from that amount the storage, transportation, refining and other costs incurred by the company before the oil or gas can be sold.  Most states, like Pennsylvania, allow for this post-production deduction of any costs incurred after the gas hits the wellhead, and therefore are called “At the Wellhead” states.  A few, like West Virginia, would not allow any deductions until the oil or gas has been turned into a marketable product, and are called “Marketable Product” states.  This of course leads to a definitional problem of what constitutes a “Marketable Product” and how is it determined?

There is logic to the industry’s position on the deduction of costs post capture “at the wellhead”, but some energy companies (not all) have abused the doctrine to deduct massive amounts of questionable costs before turning any money over to the landowners in royalties.  In certain truly egregious cases in Pennsylvania, landowners actually found themselves not receiving royalty checks but bills from companies like Chesapeake Energy for their share of costs incurred by the company in transporting, storing etc. gas taken from their land!  Not surprisingly, this resulted in a class action lawsuit which has been settled pending an agreement with Pennsylvania Attorney General Josh Shapiro on an unfair trade practices suit.

In the end, Story 1 and Story 2 have one thing in common.  Here in the Northeast, the energy industry is not the 800 pound gorilla dominating each State’s economy.  States like Pennsylvania and West Virginia have held out the welcome sign for the industry.  It’s up to the industry to keep that sign standing.

Questions? Let Dan know.

Marcellus Shale Update – 3.01.2018

The curious inconsistency among our national energy policy, national security policy and national environmental policy is coming into sharper focus.  It likely will be amplified by events thousands of miles away in the Middle East.

Start locally.  Last month I wrote about the astounding fact that people in New York and New England are more comfortable paying the Russians to import gas thousands of miles over ships of questionable seaworthiness than they are building pipelines to secure a cheap, reliable energy supply and pay Americans.  This aversion to pipelines is not unique to New York and New England – witness Dakota Access in North Dakota, Keystone in Nebraska and Jordan Cove in Oregon.   In Lambertville, NJ (next to Trenton), Mayor Dave Del Vecchio signed off on new zoning restrictions aimed at stopping the Penn East Pipeline which would transport gas from Northeastern Pennsylvania to the Trenton area.  Other municipalities have expressed their intent to try to stop the project.  Despite the fact that Penn East has received FERC approval, in the post-Andrew Cuomo/Constitution world interstate pipelines construction is a free-for-all.  How that serves the national interest is anyone’s guess.

Now broaden the horizons internationally, and especially to the Middle East.  The papers are full of stories about an impending war between Israel, Iran and Hezbollah.  Having been “invited” into the Syrian situation, Iran has used the opportunity to build its own military bases and extend its “Ring of Fire” around Israel.  They may be close to accomplishing it.  The Israelis are more and more convinced that war will break out soon.  They will not let Iran and Hezbollah build missile factories right under their nose.  Add to this the military power Russia has established in Syria, and for good measure take a small dose of American-backed Syrian rebels, Kurds and Turks, and you have a giant mess.  With Iran constantly pushing for a military confrontation, it’s hard to see how one will be avoided.  Once underway, there is no margin for error, and war is an exceedingly messy and imprecise business.

Already Americans have directly killed Russians.  On February 7 Russian forces attacked the town of Deir al-Zor in Syria, held by American-led Kurdish and Arab forces. At least 100 and potentially many times more Russians were killed and wounded in American air strikes.  The Russians have kept this hush hush, but it shows the danger.

Meanwhile, Syrian President Bashar Assad is carpet bombing anti-government rebels using chlorine gas in the Syrian region of Eastern Ghouta.  Western diplomats like British Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson are demanding a response, but any must take into account Russian air defenses.

With rather clear cut human rights violations, and with Russia directly involved, it would seem that Europe would love to give Russia a black eye over the Eastern Ghouta outrage, at least diplomatically.  The problem remains European dependence on Russian oil and gas.   Russia is Europe’s main supplier.   As of 2015, the 28 EU Member States imported 902 Mtoe of energy from Russia.  If a conflagration happens, and if we end up directly involved with the Russians – each of which is very possible – don’t expect overwhelming European support in areas like sanctions against the Russians.  Thanks to our pipeline buildout confusion and delays in establishing export terminals, we may face the prospect that the only way to project American power is to put American young men and women in harm’s way.  This is not a pleasant prospect. And didn’t have to happen.  It is, however, a direct response to our failure to counteract a Russian energy stranglehold despite having the opportunity to do so.

In any war situation, the price of commodities, including oil and gas, is likely to skyrocket.  Thanks to shale gas, that price spike will be tempered, at least everywhere in the Country except New York and New England.  We are on our way to overtaking Russia as the world’s largest oil producer, but we have no way to get the oil and natural gas to the Northeast.  Thanks to Andrew Cuomo and the other New England Governors and politicians, their region remains remarkably exposed.

As one nation, can we simply cut a geographic region loose during a price spike and say there will be no help coming from the rest of the country and no imports permitted from Russia and Yemen due to the international situation?  This could devastate New England economically.  On the other hand, does the whole country have to suffer for the well-meaning yet naïve environmental extremism of that region?  Let’s hope we don’t find out, but it’s more and more likely we will.

Questions? Let Dan know.