Thread by @jglarusso

1. @GlobeOpinion delivered a one-two punch of consecutive op-eds last week blaming environmentalists and NIMBYism for both slowing progress on climate change here in Mass. and callously off-shoring environmental degradation related to the state’s appetite for energy.

2. The first op-ed transported the reader via WABAC machine to mid-1990’s Point Fortin in Trinidad & Tobago (TT), where plans were then getting underway to build the Atlantic LNG plant/terminal.

bit.ly/2R5RxyP

3. Something strange happens in the 3rd paragraph of the op-ed. Though describing the events of 23 years ago, the op-ed says that the TT LNG plant was built to provide Boston “with natural gas when constrained [natural gas] pipelines into New England max out.”

Did you catch it?

4. That’s right! Even though the op-ed is describing the events of 23 years ago it slips into the present tense. Why is “max out” vs. “maxed out” strange? Well, take it as a given that the Globe opinion writers are superior grammarians, and their choice of tense was deliberate.

5. So why telescope time that way? To suggest that the pipeline constraints of today are the same as those of 23 years ago, and to lay that lack of progress (and the degradation of Point Fortin) at the feet of today’s opponents of new gas pipelines.

That simply doesn’t wash.

6. The op-ed cites a 2004 history of the TT LNG plant (bit.ly/2H073Y6) to substantiate that the plant was initiated by Boston-based Cabot LNG (then owners of the Everett Distrigas LNG terminal) to take advantage of insufficient gas pipeline capacity.

That much is true.

7. That reference comes from p. 11 of the TT LNG history. But it won’t surprise you to learn that there is a lot in the 2004 TT LNG history the Globe didn’t use.

Before getting to that though, let’s talk about the Everett Distrigas LNG terminal.

8. In 1995 Distrigas of Mass. was a Cabot LNG subsidiary, and yes, Cabot was looking to build the TT LNG plant to supply Distrigas’ Everett LNG terminal. But in 1995 the Distrigas LNG terminal was already 24 years old! Where had Distrigas been getting LNG for all of those years?

9. Algeria. That’s what it says on p. *10* of the TT LNG history. (Algeria has been producing LNG since 1964.) So, if Cabot LNG been able to source LNG from Algeria since 1971, when the Distrigas terminal was built, up through 1995, why was it so keen to build the TT LNG plant?

10. Here’s what the TT LNG history has to say (p. 10): “Since pipeline capacity into the northeast U.S. states was limited, [natural gas] prices would rise quite sharply in the winter months to a level at which Algeria was prepared to supply [LNG to Distrigas].”

11. Does that situation sound familiar? (I.e. constrained gas pipeline capacity into NE = higher gas prices in winter = the need to supplement pipeline-delivered gas supplies with LNG.) Of course it does! These are the conditions that prevail in NE today, ...

12. ... and that is why the Globe attempts to telescope time with its op-ed. It wants the reader to believe that nothing has been done in NE for the last 23 years, and that nothing has changed. But in fact a lot has been done, and there’s been a *significant* amount of change.

13. What has been done? Well, contrary to what the Globe would have its readers believe, more natural gas pipelines *were*, in fact, built.

This is what the Globe said citing the TT LNG history: “… the speed [with which the TT LNG plant was built] was motivated by a desire ...

14. ... to get into the Boston market as fast as possible to head off pipeline competition.”

Reading that you might conclude Cabot LNG was hoping to maintain its market share by bringing more LNG into the region to relieve the then-current pressure to build new pipelines.

15. Well, if that had been its goal, Cabot LNG failed miserably. According to the TT LNG history (p.10) the Globe itself cites, there were then two pipeline projects on the drawing boards that Cabot LNG saw as direct competition for market share: ...

16. ...the Portland Natural Gas Transmission System (PNGTS) & the Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline (M&NP). Both PNGTS and M&NP went into service in 1999. PNGTS can deliver 168 million cubic feet per day (MMcf/d); M&NP can deliver 440 MMcf/d.

17. Since 2016 the following pipeline projects have gone into service.

• Algonquin Incremental Market (342 MMcf/d)
• Salem Lateral Project (115 MMcf/d)
• Atlantic Bridge (40 MMcf/d)
• C2C (42 MMcf/d)
• CT Expansion (72 MMcf/d)

That equals 611 MMcf/d of new added capacity.

18. In 2016 NE’s regional pipeline capacity was estimated to equal 4.7 Bcf/d—that’s billion cubic feet per day—based on then-current shipper’s contracts.

The 611 MMcf/d in capacity added in the last 2 years *alone* increased NE’s regional gas pipeline capacity by about 13%.

19/ And as you can see in the @EIAgov chart below, about 2.5 Bcf/d in expansions to NE’s regional gas pipeline transmission system were completed between 2007 and 2010.

Contrary to what @GlobeOpinion would have you believe, a *lot* of pipe has been laid here in NE since 1995.

20. What about the environmental damage caused in Point Fortin? But for Cabot LNG would Trinidad & Tobago have built an LNG plant there? Maybe. Maybe not. Looking at the TT Ministry of Energy & Energy Industries map below, though, it appears the answer leans more to “maybe.”

21. The map indicates that TT exported 28.82 million cubic meters (m3) of LNG in 2016, and that 5.69 million m3 was sent to NE. That’s just 19.7% of TT’s total exported LNG. Q: Where did the rest of it go? A: The Caribbean, S. America, Europe, the eastern Mediterranean, and Asia.

22. The LNG market is global. The map below shows just how robust a market it is. LNG is produced, and it is shipped to wherever it commands the highest price.

22/ The LNG market is global. The map below shows just how robust a market it is. LNG is produced, and it is shipped to wherever it commands the highest price.

23. So if TT had a rich natural gas resource would it have let it lie fallow if Cabot LNG had never come calling? Seems unlikely. Rather it seems TT would have built its LNG plant eventually—if not in 1995—to capitalize on the global appetite for a commodity it had in abundance.

24. And are there no environmental impacts where the fracked gas that is delivered via pipeline into NE is produced?

There certainly are.

25. This NYT book review of @elizagriswold’s account of the public health and environmental impacts in Marcellus Shale communities is every bit as stark as the @GlobeOpinion’s description of the harm & damage done to Point Fortin. nyti.ms/2CR3XSq

26. After describing the damage done to Point Fortin, the op-ed concludes by denouncing opposition to gas pipelines as NIMBYism: “...Massachusetts has what it wants: a way to make its symbolic stand against fossil fuels—while still getting them through someone else’s back yard.”

27. Considering the sizeable expansion of NE’s gas pipeline system during the last decade it’s clear there’s been no meaningful stand against fossil fuels, but instead a constant retreat.

It’s also clear that pipelines shift the burden of NE’s gas use every bit as much as LNG.

28/ And it ought to be clear too, that @GlobeOpinion isn’t, as it would have you believe, opining in favor of a sensible and equitable approach to meeting NE’s energy needs—it is shilling on behalf of pending gas pipeline projects.

29. It’s 2019, not 1995. We’re losing the battle against climate change. To limit the increase in global temp. to 1.5° C, the Paris climate agreement goal, we’d have to reduce GHG emissions 40-50% by 2030—just 12 years from now—and 100% by 2050.

bit.ly/2Qogal7

30. That’s the assessment contained in the UN IPCC’s most recent report. Jim Skea, one of the authors of the report, said those reductions “would require unprecedented changes.”

That would Include unprecedented changes in @GlobeOpinion’s thinking.

###

P.S. As it happens, the LNG tanker BW Everett is at anchorage in Boston harbor. It left Trinidad & Tobago (Chaguaramas) on Dec. 17, and will probably berth at the Distrigas Everett terminal sometime this week.

P.S.S. The BW Everett has come in.