“Pipe-Lies” and “Fossil Foolishness”

I will be actively assisting the communities along the proposed “Pipeline Route” – the 720 psi 30″ gas main** proposed to traverse several communities in my district AND the JBMDL, both for the environmental and safety issues it brings to these towns, AND for the hidden reason it’s being built in the first place.

If there were any doubt on where I stand – I oppose the pipeline – AND THE COMPRESSOR STATION – on ANY route.

I will elaborate further in future messages, but, for now, allow me to point out some serious flaws in my opponent’s reasons to vigorously SUPPORT this project, up to and including trying to push through legislation making a commercial export pipeline a matter of National Security.

Here’s the “National Energy Security Corridors Act”

https://www.cbo.gov/publication/50346

Watch carefully how the “Energy Lease” is treated offshore – supposedly for a wind project.
Arguments my opponent raises FOR the pipeline? His own words (or those of his writers/masters) appear in the photo of his press release, below.

Mac-AP-Pipeline

 

Rebuttals, point by point:

1) “There is an increased need to serve the growing communities along the path.”

Where would that be? Brick Township’s Council (all Democrat) just announced their intention to change the zoning of a proposed high-density housing tract to single-family residential – effectively quartering the potential future need, and falling within the ability of the local utility to serve that community with existing supply infrastructure.

Other areas cited are regulated under the Pinelands “Comprehensive Management Plan” – which is why CC is trying to gut the authority of the Pinelands Environmental Commission and thwart the protections on those public lands in place since the late 1970′s.

There is no “sudden, urgent need” to increase the gas flow for residential use, and, if there were, a 720 psi / 30″ main would be the equivalent of putting out birthday candles with a fire hose.

2) “It will bring hundreds of new jobs to the region”

The pipeline, once built, will provide few permanent positions. The “jobbers” who will construct it will not be local labor. Once, again, my opponent appears to lack an understanding of the difference between “Union Locals” and “Local Unions”. (He doesn’t lack an understanding, by the way – he absolutely knows he’s fibbing – he just believes YOU don’t). This is similar to his “misdirection” in the last election, having hired laborers from a PA. local to show up at an event in Burlington NJ to show support for his candidacy, when the LOCAL “Local” (Bordentown) refused to endorse him.

It would bring jobs for skilled workers, but from out of State – who, when the job is complete, will be off to ruin someone else’s neighborhoods. Pipeline companies don’t hire “local”.

3) “It will provide for energy security for the JBMDL.”

The infrastructure in place to provide energy to the JBMDL, while older, has little to do with the need being “presented” as the reason for this line. In fact, many, many buildings on the grounds of the JBMDL are literally “moth-balled” at the moment.

If the JBMDL’s energy needs weren’t already securely addressed, then someone needs to lose their job for failing to provide for it. That is simply not the case…AND, to add literal “insult” to injury, the proposed route will cross several “remediation sites” within the base’ borders.

The further purpose would be to MAKE REDUNDANT an existing line that is even less expensive to use to transfer gas to an offshore export point.

4) “The pipeline will provide for lower cost natural gas for local residential use.”

This one’s a doozy – not only did he actually expect us to believe this – he threw in the “Factoid” that we pay 18 times the price for natural gas here in NJ that PA residents pay. Really?
REALLY?

I am going to post a PA resident’s PGW bill showing cost per cu.ft for his residential gas use, and the same cost for my own home – which is heated with gas. I pay less than half what he does. In the meantime, here’s the “Gas Shopping Guide” from the Pennsylvania Office of the Consumer Advocate, comparing PA Gas prices “per therm”. Compare them to your bill, and tell me if it’s 18 times “less” than you’re paying. I bet “no”.

http://www.oca.state.pa.us/Industry…

Did he really think no one would check? If you’re right, pound the facts. If you’re wrong, pound the table.

5) “Increased capacity will be needed to keep Oyster Creek in Operation”.

Even if that WERE true – and it is not – there are other options that SHOULD BE required of the plant owner in remediation before we allow the scabs to be picked off the present environmental issues “on-site” at the power plant by trenching through them. There is already evidence of contamination leaking into the groundwater, as tritium is turning up in the wells near the plant in Lacey.

Tritium is not a direct product of a Fission reactor, but it’s waste, in contact with the lithium-rich Cohansey and Kirkwood soils, creates tritium from the lithium through a process called “ternary fission”, where the lithium, exposed to alpha-decay, degrades to He3, which furthur degrades to H3.

The discovery that this can occur is older than I am, and has even been used to monitor the degree of subsurface contamination at the Savannah River plant, through monitoring of test wells.

You can read the original “Albenesius” Paper, here:

https://www.scribd.com/doc/257538829/127albenesius-Discovery-that-Nuclear-Fission-produces-Tritium

This is a veiled effort to build an export main for Marcellus Shale fracking production – which will find its way to export through efforts not yet made public. This will involve “taking” public lands from communities, flouting/ignoring local control and regulation, and going forward with an utter disregard for those “in the way”.

The State of New York already has already said “no” to an export stub. We should be restricting the “energy lease” offshore to “Wind ENERGY Production ONLY”, or you will find it proposed that the lease can’t be cost-effective for wind production, and a demand for the right to be able to put a Liquefied Natural Gas export stub end off our coast.

Here’s a New York Times article on the veto of the Fracking Products export hub:

http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2010…

Why do you think the line has to operate at such a high pressure? Because it has to be higher than the water pressure on the line at the ocean floor, OR they will have to add further compressor stations where the shore area will “notice” the nasty side effects – (and we can’t have it affect the tourism business)- and locate them on barrier islands subject to storm damage. The higher than normal pressure is not to move the gas…simple physics shows that to be unnecessary – even moreso with a wider-than-normal diameter main – btw, 30″ wide is not “twice” the capacity of a 15″ main…it’s nearly FOUR TIMES the capacity…3.999994474 times, to be precise. Never argue physics with a scientist when you’re an insurance guy. (or fluid dynamics and laminar flow, either.)

The reason, again, for the higher pressure, is to keep positive pressure in the line “at depth”, so that a leak in the pipe would blow OUT rather than IN, ruining the line permanently through salt water contamination.

14.696 lbs per square inch is atmospheric pressure at sea level (STP = Standard temperature and Pressure), which means the pipeline would have an operating pressure of just under FORTY-NINE TIMES atmospheric pressure at sea level. That exceeds the pounds per square inch exerted by the ocean water at 1500 FEET (250 fathoms).

For perspective, that’s more than twice the CRUSH DEPTH of a WW II Fleet Submarine.

720 psi is five times the inlet pressure at the Duck Island gas-fired power plant this bypasses near Bordentown.

The proposed route puts this main BETWEEN an elementary school and the first responders protecting it, as just one example of why this is a bad idea.

Sorry, Mr. Congressman – the people in this district are a little better informed than you think – and those who aren’t will be shortly – you have MY word on that. You’ll just have to disappoint the guys who wrote you the check. Maybe they won’t want it back.

Read the donor list on the Federal Election Commission’s web-page – for those Representatives along the proposed route – PA included, and you’ll understand why my opponent supports this measure. You’ll also probably be pleasantly surprised were you to check NJ Representation on ELEC. The folks who “live here” oppose this vehemently.

“Our man in Washington D.C.” – Bought and paid for.

Your interests don’t matter unless they’re in a memo on a fat check.

Maybe where you’re from, sir, Republicans don’t care about the environment. Down here, Democrats, Independents, AND Republicans DO…and they care about their children, as well.

The “League of Conservation Voters” just ranked NJ’s sitting Federal Legislators, scoring them for their positions protecting our environment. My opponent can be proud that he’s twice as well-thought-of on environmental issues as his cohorts, Scott Garrett and Rodney Freylinghuysen.

He got a “6”. They both got “3’s”.

Sadly, that “6” is NOT on a scale of “1 to 10”. It’s a percentage. If you multiplied his score 10 TIMES, it’s still a failing grade.

That’s right. He scores 6%.

Mr. Congressman, we’re not selling you the family cow for your three magic beans.

I am running to make positive changes in Washington D.C. The first, and among the most positive changes I will make, is a changing of the guard in District Three.

“Stand for what’s right, or settle for what’s left” – Frederick John LaVergne for Congress.

Want to defeat the proposed pipeline and compressor station? Help me defeat the incumbent who supports it…





2 thoughts on ““Pipe-Lies” and “Fossil Foolishness”

  1. Temp – Proud Bernie Sanders Democrat October 9, 2016 at 10:14 pm - Reply

    […] in some enormously important areas, his views are indeed progressive: He is completely against the natural gas pipelines in his district, for treating climate change like the crisis it is, and […]

  2. […] he is against all of the natural gas pipelines (and their compressor stations, and all the “fossil foolishness“) being proposed in his district–and that this opposition is not incompatible with […]

Leave a Reply

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