Powered by Max Banner Ads 

Anti-Gas Environmentalists Simply Making Us Less Safe

"Environmentalists" - MarkindDaniel B. Markind, Esq.
Weir and Partners, LLP


Actions of some environmentalists relating to natural gas are making our world, and our children’s world, less safe, less secure and less environmentally friendly.

Ten years after the start of the shale revolution, the United States reached the height of absurdity. A tanker named the Gaselys docked in Boston Harbor this weekend carrying natural gas. New England needs this gas because it refuses to allow the buildout of our interstate natural gas pipeline system. The Gaselys carried liquefied natural gas from – Russia.

You read that correctly. Despite being just a few hours away from the most prolific natural gas fields in the world in Northeastern Pennsylvania, New England needs to obtain natural gas shipped on the high seas from gas wells in Russia.

Gaselys LNG ship

Absolutely everything about this picture is wrong. The gas could have been produced in Pennsylvania under American environmental regulations overseen by the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection. Instead it was produced in the Arctic eco-system overseen by the Russians.

The gas could have been transported a few hundred miles along newly built gas pipelines that are extraordinarily safe (though not 100%, nothing is). Instead, the gas was shipped thousands of miles over the ocean in tankers of unknown quality and safety.

New England residents could have developed a secure, domestic supply of natural gas at affordable prices. Instead, New England has a completely unreliable supply of natural gas at possibly the highest prices in the world. It is astounding that any business would even consider locating in New England. Boston made the cut of the final 20 cities competing for Amazon’s new headquarters. How Amazon seriously could consider setting up operations there is beyond me.

Finally, the money used to purchase the gas could have gone to American companies who employ American workers and pay royalties to American landowners. Instead, the money went to – Vladimir Putin. And it’s not a one-time thing. There will be other Russian gas shipments to Boston in the upcoming weeks.

The reason for all of this, of course, is that the shortsighted politicians in New York and New England refuse to allow construction of the pipelines needed to move the gas from the Marcellus Region to New England. These politicians claim they are preserving the environment and combatting climate change. They are doing the opposite.

Most of the power plants in New England can use either oil or natural gas. Usually the price of natural gas makes it the preferred fuel. With the price spikes affecting New England this winter, those plants have switched to oil, a much dirtier burning fuel.

In addition, New England politicians and “environmentalists” applauded as New England’s nuclear power plants shut down. The Pilgrim Nuclear Plant in Massachusetts is the only one left. It will close by June, 2019. No one knows how that power supply (about 4.1% of Massachusetts’s total) will be made up.

In 2014, Vermonters cheered when the Yankee Nuclear Plant closed. “Enviros” assured everyone that the balance would be offset from cleaner renewables. No such luck. After years of decline, New England’s CO2 emissions rose 5%.

There is no delicate way to put this. The actions of the “environmental community” relating to natural gas are making our world, and our children’s world, less safe, less secure and less environmentally friendly.

If these “environmentalists” have an honest plan to power America’s needs, please show it to us. Do we really need to import Russian gas before they present us with a real plan to run our nation in 2018? How about even by 2038? Anyone who loves the environment knows there are trade-offs. Which ones would our “environmentalists” make?

I know these posts are read in the United States Senate, so I will ask the Senators who receive them to forward this to Massachusetts Senators Warren and Markey with one question. What are you trying to accomplish?

Energy is not a play toy. We’re not in a university classroom where you can pontificate with no real world consequences. This is the real world.

Your constituents’ money is going to Russia. Your CO2 emissions are rising. Your oceans and bays are filling with gas tankers. Your state and region are becoming less competitive. As American dollars flow into Vladimir Putin’s pockets, please help us understand what you are doing.


Print Friendly, PDF & Email

12 thoughts on “Anti-Gas Environmentalists Simply Making Us Less Safe

  1. Daniel, when you can have the gas pipelines right next to your house and the gas development right next to your house and the compressor station right next to your house so you can fuel and heat New England homes,
    then tell me how great this gas energy
    is and why we need to develop energy like this in our rural communities
    so New England doesn’t have to have Russian tankers in their harbors.

    You personally sacrifice your living space for gas energy, then you may
    be credible…

    • Vera, please quit the hyperbole. Pipelines are not sitting 4 feet above the ground, they are buried. Production facilities (rigs) are temporary…3-4 months. And compressor stations are not sitting next to everyone’s homes, nor are the pipelines.

    • Glad to know where you allegiances lie Vera. It’s a shame you feel the need to defend the use of Russian gas when it should be painfully obvious that supporting Russia in any way is a bad deal.

      Just an FYI, most landowner’s who sign the ROW’s for pipelines, agree to location of said pipeline. Not to mention the fact that the companies building the pipeline must comply with state regulations that dictate how far away a pipeline/structure (compressor sites) must be from existing structures.

    • Vera,
      It is obvious that the distribution infrastructure is already there to the homes so they can offload the gas from the ships so the pipeline in queation should not be an issue.
      Nat Grid who took over Keystone gas implemented a project years ago to expand gas lines into Queens and Nassau counties to serve customers who used to use Oil as a heating fuel. The project was beneficial in that it delivered a much more cleaner and efficient fuel to the residents (Improved Air Quality) and eliminated the instances of failing underground fuel tanks leaking into a sole source aquifer.
      Once again you have proven to everyone of your lack of understanding the big picture and only care about your fragile, selfish and irrelevant ego.

    • Vera, why don’t you move to New England so you can pay the highest possible energy prices? The US has several million miles of safe pipelines used to move a variety of liquids and gasses. There are noise limits on compressor stations, which are enforced.

      You have no feasible plan to make anything better, and instead just repeat the same tired complaints. You have no credibility.

    • This is probably the tenth time I’ve asked these questions of you: 1. If nat gas extraction has poisoned your area in PA, why oh why do you still live in that trailer and why do your fellow invaders, Craig and Ray still live in their houses as well? 2. Where oh where are all the people fleeing the 30 states that allow fracking that should be coming into frack free NY? Your incessant avoidance to answer these two simple questions reeks of lies and deceit. Stay in PA and stay out of NY!

  2. Amazing stupidity! Those same NE politicians are up in arms about Russian efforts to influence US politics. I am sure that influence extends into hindering US energy production via promotion of radical environmentalism that works to the economic benefit of the Russians and to the detriment of the US economy. I think those politicians are as brainwashed as some were perceived to be in the depth of the cold war. Russian psych-ops lives! (The same thing is happening in Europe. The Russians are capitalizing upon the enviro-stupidity that has become so in vogue).

  3. Vera,

    I live one mile from a Superfund site, ten miles from where all the high-pressure, major gas trunk lines connect and twenty miles downwind from a nuclear power plant. I don’t take a backseat to you in proximity to potentially catastrophic environmental disasters, but we live with it.

    You’re very clear about what you’re against, but what are you for? You live in a cold part of the country, how do you suggest you get your heat during the winter? Let’s take a look at the downsides of whatever you propose.

  4. Good story Dan. I am luck to have a natural gas pipeline that brings low-cost natural gas to my home for heat, hot water, and cooking. I live in PA and have seen the natural gas costs dropped like crazy, saving me money and lowering my power costs. Too bad many people in poor communities near me have heating oil for heat and can’t afford to heat their homes and their families all winter (having natural gas could get them through the winter). Fossil fuels have made us a further developed world and allow us to live longer lives. Natural gas is used to make all plastics we use, fertilizers, rugs/linens, detergents, and much more. I’d love to see renewables get further developed but we are many decades from being able to see renewables be able to power a large portion of our energy needs. Environmentalist groups do not deal with facts and do not offer solutions. They really do hinder important advancements to keep us safer, and in many cases keep us from protecting the environment.

  5. A different perspective.
    ‘The Deliberate Corruption of Climate Science’.
    My website is
    “Human Caused Global Warming”, ‘The Biggest Deception in History’.
    Awaiting court decision in Dr Andrew Weaver vs Dr Tim Ball in Supreme Court, in Vancouver, BC

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

 Powered by Max Banner Ads