EPA questions need for Pa. gas pipeline | Star-Gazette | stargazette.com
July 15, 2011
EPA questions need for Pa. gas pipeline | Star-Gazette | stargazette.com.
In court, PG&E deflects blame for San Bruno blast
July 12, 2011
In court, PG&E deflects blame for San Bruno blast.
In court, PG&E deflects blame for San Bruno Blast July 12/2011
Bainbridge Residents Weigh In On Natural Gas Pipeline | WBNG-TV: News, Sports and Weather Binghamton, New York | Local
June 16, 2011
Bainbridge Residents Weigh In On Natural Gas Pipeline
By Jenna Hanchard
June 14, 2011 Updated Jun 14, 2011 at 11:05 PM EDT
Bainbridge, NY (WBNG Binghamton) More than 100 people crowd into the Bainbrige Town hall to weigh in on a proposed natural gas pipeline.
The Leatherstocking Gas Company wants to build a pipeline that would run through Sidney, Coventry and Bainbridge.
The company is based in Sidney and wants to obtain public utility status.
The Village of Sidney has already signed off on the plan, but it has yet to go to a vote in Coventry or in Bainbridge.
Many who spoke up in support of the pipeline say the plan would create jobs and economic opportunities for the area.
Those against the plan fear the possibility of the company using eminent domain to build the lines and that constructing this pipeline will pressure lawmakers to give hydrofracking the go ahead.
“I’d like to see natural gas available as a competition to the oil. Oil is driving us out of our home. My heating bill next year is probably going to be like five thousand dollars, ” says Jay Campbell.
“Its problematic because its an underhanded attempt to invest millions of dollars and then say to our state assembly and state senate ‘we’ve put this in we’ve made this investment, you have to okay fracking,” says Patrick McElligott.
Both the town and the company reiterate that Leatherstocking does not have the right to use land belonging to residents for this project.
The town of Bainbridge will revisit the company’s plan at its next meeting to determine how it will move forward.
Enbridge denies responsibility for oil spill | Michigan Messenger
February 1, 2011
Enbridge denies responsibility for oil spill | Michigan Messenger.
Enbridge denies responsibility for oil spill
Refuses to pay some claims of property damage, business loss, health problems
By Eartha Jane Melzer | 01.31.11 | 8:22 am
Despite public promises to compensate residents for losses associated with the summer oil spill, in Calhoun county court Enbridge is arguing that it is not legally liable for damages from the spill.
Last July a pipeline rupture on Enbridge’s 6B pipeline spilled an estimated million gallons of Canadian tar sands crude into the Kalamazoo River system. The oil traveled 30 miles down the rain-swollen river, coating the floodplain.
Officials declared a state of emergency, recommended evacuation because of unsafe levels of benzene in the air, and closed the Kalamazoo River to all activity by the public.
In numerous public statements Enbridge CEO Pat Daniels apologized for the spill and promised to take responsibility for the cleanup and address the needs of the affected people and businesses.
But six months after the spill, the river remains closed and some residents have not been able to get compensation through the claims process set up by the company.
Attorney Bill Mayhall represents 10 households in Marshall and Battle Creek that were not able to find satisfactory arrangements with the pipeline company for property damages and health issues such as headaches, nausea, vomiting, and respiratory issues.
These clients are accusing Enbridge of nuisance and negligence for failing to adequately maintain its pipeline and are seeking damages in Calhoun Circuit Court.
Enbridge is fighting the claims. The company has retained Dickinson Wright attorneys Kathleen Lang and Edward Pappas — the same team that is defending Dow Chemical against a class action suit over dioxin contamination in the Saginaw River watershed — and its answer to the legal claims sounds very different from the friendly promises offered by Daniels at community forums.
In the days after the spill Enbridge representatives went door to door promising that they would pay for spill damages, Mayhall said.
“Now they want us to prove that they are responsible for the spill.”
Enbridge argues that it cannot be held liable for the oil spill because it has followed all relevant laws, regulations and industry standards and the damage was not foreseeable.
The company also argues that the charges against it are improper “because federal, state and/or local authorities and agencies have mandated, directed, approved and/or ratified the alleged actions or omissions.”
And though Enbridge repeatedly told residents it would pay all legitimate expenses, in filings with the Calhoun court the company says:
“The statements at issue, that were made in Defendants’ press releases and brochure, were mere expressions of intention, not offers.”
The owners of the Play Care Learning Center in Marshall are suing Enbridge for interfering with their daycare business, which was located a half mile from the spill site.
Play Care, represented attorney Donnelly Hadden, says that they were forced to close their business when parents pulled their kids out of care because of the air pollution from the spill.
Play Care argues that Enbridge failed to maintain its pipeline and failed to adequately protect them against a long list of chemicals related to the contamination.
In an answer to this lawsuit Enbridge argues that the day care center can’t know what chemicals it was exposed to because no one knows what chemicals were released during the oil spill.
“Defendants state that different types of oil contain different constituents and substances in varying quantities and that the investigation of the nature and extent of the crude oil discharged is ongoing,” the response said.
“It is time for Enbridge to state in court if they really meant what they said to those injured by the spill,” said Mayhall, “or whether their statements to pay legitimate damages were simply a public relations ploy to calm community anger.”
Enbridge Spokeswoman Terri Larson said that the company “remains committed to paying all non-fraudulent claims that are directly related to the incident.”
A schedule for the cases is expected to be set at a conference on March 7.
Natural Gas Blast, Fires Disrupt Life in Ohio Town Jan 24, 2011
January 24, 2011
Natural Gas Blast, Fires Disrupt Life in Ohio Town By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS. Published: January 24, 2011
FAIRPORT HARBOR, Ohio (AP) — Built-up pressure in natural gas lines led to a house explosion in an Ohio town Monday morning, caused a series of fires and prompted a brief evacuation order for the village of about 3,000 people.
A dozen or more fires were reported in Fairport Harbor, a tiny harborfront village situated along frozen Lake Erie, about 30 miles northeast of Cleveland. Only two fires were still burning by late morning and were under control, said Tom Talcott, deputy chief of the fire department in nearby Mentor.
PSC on natural gas pipelines/gathering lines. Jan 20, 2011, Norwich
January 21, 2011
Chenango, Otsego, Delaware, Madison Regional Natural Gas Collaborative in Norwich. Jan 20, 2011.
The audio for this meeting is available at: http://changetheframe.com/audio/four%20county%20fracking%20forum-processed.mp3 It’s about 2 hours. 1:59:55
A video will be posted at www.ShaleShockMedia.org at some point. This will take at least 1 week…
The very interesting thing I heard from this meeting:
- The definition of what makes a “gathering line” different from a “trunk line” is the length, diameter, and pressure of the pipe. But the definition is somewhat fuzzy. Anything above a certain size/pressure is regulated by the NY Dept. of Public Safety. Below that, these smaller typically gathering lines are completely unregulated by the state. The state does not even have details about the location of these lines.
- The good thing is (since NY is a Home-Rule state) that this creates an opportunity for local municipalities to create local laws which regulate gathering lines. But municipalities now seem pretty uninformed about this. Bill Houston
=======================
Yesterday I attended a meeting of the Chenango, Otsego, Delaware, Madison Regional Natural Gas Collaborative in Norwich.
The speaker was Jim Austin of the Public Service Commission.
Jim gave a presentation of what the PSC does in the way of permitting local and state gas lines. PSC is responsible for the permitting of gas lines of greater that 125 psi over 1000 feet long.
FERC is responsible for permitting interstate gas lines.
PSC has regulations that apply to these pipelines in a 3 tiered formula. Smaller lines requiring less scrutiny than larger ones. Details are to be found here:
There are two areas of concern that I can see with the PSC process. The first is that PSC is very involved with giving waivers from local ‘unreasonable’ regulations. The other is that PSC has 2 (two) people in the field doing inspections for the whole state of NY.
It became very clear at the meeting that the concerns of most of those present were about the pipelines that are NOT permitted by PSC. These are gathering lines under 125 psi. It seems that no one permits, supervises, inspects or maps these lines except the gas companies. There are very many more gathering lines than there are lines over 125 psi (example – more capillaries than veins or arteries). In the event that there is more than an acre of disturbance for gathering lines, then a SPIDES permit would apply. Jim believes that gathering lines are regulated by local government. These low pressure pipelines are plastic, and are usually buried 2 to 4 feet deep. They are not subject to Dig Safe labeling, but are required to have trace wire.
Farmers are very concerned about these gathering lines and the Farm Bureau wants PSC to supervise all gas lines and include them in Dig Safe NY. There is legislation being written to implement this.
The pipeline safety department of PSC oversees compliance for both PSC and FERC permitted gas lines. The question was raised if they also inspect lines below 125 psi. To answer this and other safety questions, the pipeline safety department will be asked to send someone to address the collaborative at a future date.
I asked when the smell is added to gas so that the public could be aware of leaks in gas lines. Stephen Keyes of Norse Energy was unable to answer the question, but I will be emailing him to follow up.
My general impression is that rather like DEC, PSC is woefully understaffed to cope with the proposed gas invasion, and there is insufficient regulation of low pressure gathering lines. Caroline Martin
GDACC 
