Discover and read the best of Twitter Threads about #Natgas
Most recents (3)
.@FERC has a lot to be proud of in the 11 months since a quorum was re-established in August 2017.
Among the most significant achievements is the approval of a number of major #natgas #pipeline projects & BILLIONS of cf/d of new capacity. Many of those projects had been waiting for an exceptionally long time.
But there are some areas where we can & should do better — specifically, our review of #LNG export terminal applications. We need more resources!
1/ Once again the @BostonGlobe has oversimplified the debate of building pipelines to bring #natgas into NE, and it has resorted to ad hominem attacks on opponents: their politics are “faddish,” their motive a doctrinaire sense of “moral purity.” bit.ly/2DdZ2HZ #mapoli
2/ According to the Globe, opponents’ “abstinence-only ideology” is a lesson in the law of unintended consequences: insufficient pipeline capacity means LNG must be imported from abroad, or now be delivered perhaps by dangerous rail shipments, . . .
3/ and it means that coal & oil—fuels dirtier than gas—must be burned when gas supplies are constrained on cold winter days. (More on LNG, coal, & oil in a moment.) So, to sum up, the Globe’s position is “pipelines *good*; LNG, oil, coal, & sanctimony *bad*.”
1/ #Natgas pipelines vs. baby seals is a false dichotomy. Natgas pipelines vs. Russian LNG is a false dichotomy. This op-ed shouldn’t have been an op-ed, but a Spotlight series that fully informed the public, but the @BostonGlobe doesn’t have the chops. bit.ly/2BWPogN
2/ If the Globe did that Spotlight Series the first piece could have presented facts about NE’s energy needs, including its reliance on natural gas for both heating and electric generation. The gas constraint is quite real—no denying that.
3/ That first Spotlight piece could also have detailed the role energy efficiency, demand-side management, and renewables play in reducing the demand for natural gas power generation ...
