DN editorial: Gas pipelines promising, but need thorough study
THE 63-PAGE report released last week by an 80-member Energy Action committee called "A Pipeline for the Future" is a dense compilation of data and prose that boils down to:
THE 63-PAGE report released last week by an 80-member Energy Action committee called "A Pipeline for the Future" is a dense compilation of data and prose that boils down to:
If you build it, they will come.
If we can build pipelines that greatly increase the flow of natural gas from Marcellus Shale operations to the Philadelphia area, the region can emerge as an important energy hub that brings new prosperity to by creating thousands of jobs in construction and industries that rely on natural gas and its byproducts.
If it sounds like a pipe dream, no pun intended, it is not. The amount of gas within the Marcellus Shale areas is huge and could last for centuries, even if tapped at high volumes.
Right now, demand for natural gas exceeds the ability of producers to supply it. Prices are deflated. Most producers have to send their product (via pipelines) to the Gulf Coast.
But, if pipelines were built to go from the gas field to Philadelphia, this region would benefit from the influx of so much gas, rather than Louisiana and Texas. Philadelphia, which was the "Workshop of the World" in the 20th century, could again become a magnet for industry as an energy hub.
It sounds great, but nothing comes easy. Pipelines are expensive to build. The Mariner East lines, now being built by Sunoco Logistics for its processing plants in Delaware County, will end up costing $3 billion.
The political and environmental issues are numerous. The pipeline report doesn't get into the financing issue too deeply, but it's clear that any project that brings new pipelines into the region will require government support, along with money contributed by the gas producers and potential users. It would be a public/ private partnership.
It isn't unheard of for the government to invest in infrastructure. Consider the interstate highway system. In the 19th century, government money and bonds were used to pay for canals, roads and, eventually, railroads. Pipelines, though, are a different matter. The costs could be substantial (think billions) and so could the risk. Suppose the pipeline supplies more gas, but the demand does not materialize?
There also are substantial rewards that await those who do take the risk - "a river of wealth," as one member of the committee put it - that could enrich the region. Becoming an energy hub, the report predicts, will be synonymous with prosperity well into the new century.
We won't pretend to have the answers to the questions that surround this issue. But, the report should spur public discussion and debate - including the public financing of such an endeavor. If rivers of wealth are on the horizon, taxpayers asked to help foot the bill should enjoy some of those rewards, and not just be on the hook for the risks. We haven't even touched on the deep concerns about the potential hazards that fracking brings to those who live near the wells, hazards that could be mitigated by tax on gas extraction, which the Legislature has refused to impose.
Bottom line: No one will lose if there is a smart and critical examination of our options.
Read the Energy Action report: greaterphilachamber.com/download/public/gpeat16-report.pdf
Read Penn professor Mark Alan Hughes' perspective on the report: kleinmanenergy.upenn.edu/blog
