Monday, November 10, 2014

Officials question pipeline benefit / Poultry study spurs interest, concerns



 Officials question pipeline benefit / Poultry study spurs interest, concerns

Officials question pipeline benefit

By TIM DAVIS
Star-Tribune Editor | Posted: Wednesday, November 5, 2014 8:59 am

The Pittsylvania County Board of Supervisors peppered an EQT Corp. and NextEra Energy representative with questions during a presentation on the companies’ proposed Mountain Valley natural gas pipeline Monday night in Chatham.

The 330-mile pipeline would run from Wetzel County, W. Va., through southwest Virginia to Pittsylvania County and connect with Williams’ Transcontinental Gas Pipeline Company’s compressor station in Chatham.

The pipeline, estimated to cost $3 billion to $3.5 billion, would pass through 16 counties in West Virginia and Virginia, including Giles, Montgomery, Roanoke, Franklin, and Pittsylvania counties.

Natalie Cox, a spokesman with EQT in Pittsburgh, Pa., said the project includes 15 to 20 miles of pipeline and about 120 landowners in Pittsylvania County.

Cox said companies are seeking permission to walk properties and stake the proposed pipeline route.

EQT and NextEra representative Chris Sherman gave supervisors an overview of the pipeline project Monday night. It was the first public presentation; earlier, the companies met privately with one to two supervisors to avoid triggering a public meeting as required under Virginia’s Freedom of Information law.

According to Sherman, preliminary surveying is underway with a final route expected in April or May of 2015.

Westover District Supervisor Coy Harville questioned how many local jobs the pipeline will bring.

“I don’t hear anything where you will create jobs in Pittsylvania County,” the veteran supervisor said.

Sherman said the pipeline is expected to create 3,000 jobs in Virginia, mostly during construction, and the companies try to use local labor when available.

Harville asked for proof.

Staunton River District Supervisor Elton Blackstock wondered whether the pipeline would supply natural gas for economic development in the county.

Transco’s natural gas pipeline, built in the late 1940s, cuts through the heart of the county, but provides no local natural gas distribution.

“I think its paramount we don’t make the mistakes we made in the past,” Blackstock said.

“With the amount of natural gas coming in this county, there’s no reason why we shouldn’t have access. We need to hold their feet to the fire and get on top of this.”

Sherman said local access points are possible along the pipeline, especially if installed during construction. Once the high-pressure pipeline is in operation it becomes more difficult and expensive to tap into the line.

The proposed pipeline also generated questions and concerns from the public.

Karen Maute, a well-known local advocate for the environment, wondered whether the pipeline might disturb uranium deposits, especially those close to the surface.

“I’m hoping you will watch this very closely,” she said.

Mara Robbins, a Floyd County resident and representative of the Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League and Piedmont Residents in Defense of the Environment, also addressed supervisors.

Robbins accused EQT and NextEra of violating landowners’ property rights and expressed concerns about the effects of the pipeline on insurance and mortgage rates.
“Many landowners feel their rights have been compromised because they don’t get to decide,” she said.

Robbins said the pipeline will mean little benefit to the area and few local jobs because pipeline construction is highly specialized work.

She also cited concerns about air pollution, alleging natural gas compressor stations emit formaldehyde.

Robbins asked for an environmental impact study on Williams’ Chatham compressor station, which is the end point for the Mountain Valley Pipeline.

The pipeline will be governed by the U.S. Natural Gas Act, which requires a certificate of convenience and necessity from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission before construction can begin.

The FERC review and approval takes 10 to 12 months, and will involve a series of community information meetings, including one in Chatham in December.

Construction of the 36-inch to 42-inch diameter steel pipeline is scheduled to begin in late 2016 and take two years.

The pipeline, which will buried at least three feet underground, will require approximately 75 feet of permanent easement and 125 feet of total easement for temporary work space.

Landowners are entitled to fair compensation for having the pipeline on their land, and the companies said eminent domain — a legal taking of land — is a last resort.

Company officials said the pipeline will be equipped with remote-controlled shut-off valves and will be monitored 24 hours a day through EQT’s gas control center.



For more information, visit mountainvalleypipeline.info or call 844-MVP-Talk.
tim.davis@chathamstartribune.com

 

Poultry study spurs interest, concerns

By TIM DAVIS
Star-Tribune Editor | Posted: Wednesday, November 5, 2014 8:56 am

A chicken processing plant could employ 1,200 people and bring more than $300 million in investment to the region, according to a consulting firm working on an integrated poultry industry study for Pittsylvania County.

Despite the economic benefits, however, some residents are concerned about a poultry complex’s impact on water and air quality and public services, including schools.

The county held two meetings last week — one for farmers interested in becoming chicken contract growers and a second for the general public.

About 125 people from five counties attended the first meeting and around 50 were at the second.

Both meetings took place at the Olde Dominion Agricultural Complex in Chatham.

Both presentations included a presentation followed by a question-and-answer session and survey to provide more input on the ongoing poultry study, said Fred Wydner III, the county’s director of agricultural development.

The meetings were part of a study funded by the state and county to determine the feasibility of bringing an integrated poultry industry to the county.

The county put up $5,000 in cash and $5,000 in in-kind services and received a matching $10,000 grant from the Governor’s Agriculture and Forestry Industries Development Fund to fund the $20,000 poultry study.

A poultry complex would include a hatchery, feed mill, processing plant, and approximately 100 contract growers within about a 50-mile radius of the feed mill and processing plant.
The study will take into account infrastructure, workforce, environmental impact, potential contract grower base, and public acceptance, Wydner said.

According to Wydner, the county’s Agriculture Development Board identified poultry as a potential opportunity for increased employment and income.

The county already has about a half dozen chicken houses that raise birds in various stages for the poultry industry.

Wydner said the study will look at what poultry companies are expanding, how and where a poultry complex could be located, and what is attractive to the industry.

The study is expected to be completed by the end of the year.

County Administrator Clarence Monday said the purpose of the study is to determine if the poultry industry would be a good fit for the county.

“Nothing is a done deal,” Monday said. “The only thing the county has done is put together a feasibility study.”

The county looked at a chicken processing plant in Chatham in the late 1980s, but eventually abandoned the project.

Burt Bock with BR Bock Consulting Inc., which is conducting the study, said poultry offers farmers a way to diversify.

According to Bock, a chicken processing facility would cost about $140 million

A separate feed mill would require 25-50 acres and access to rail.

The consultants stressed that the poultry industry is highly regulated, and processing plants, which use 300,000 to 500,000 gallons of water a day, have their own wastewater treatment plants.

The consultants said modern poultry houses and processing plants produce little odor and observe strict setback restrictions from wells and property lines.

Lawton concurred. “It affects the whole community because money does trickle down,” he said.

Monday said the county welcomes public input on the study. The county administrator encouraged residents to contact supervisors or speak at board meetings.

“The Board of Supervisors is taking this very seriously,” he said.

Karen Maute, an outspoken advocate for the environment in the county, questioned the purpose of the study.

“It seems more like you’re selling integrated poultry rather than conducting a feasibility study,” she said.

tim.davis@chathamstartribune.com
434-432-2791
http://www.chathamstartribune.com/news/article_8aea0eb6-64f3-11e4-8b60-07e310389953.html

Friday, November 7, 2014

Animal waste threatens water supply / Addressing climate change starts at home, supermarket

 
 
Comment:  Two great letters but who in the heck is Cabbon Sudeko, I think is not a real name but great meanings!
 
Cabbon

The name Cabbon is a baby boy name.Biblical Meaning:
The name Cabbon is a
Biblical baby name. In Biblical the meaning of the name Cabbon is: As though understanding.    

SoulUrge Number: 7 People with this name have a deep inner need for quiet, and a desire to understand and analyze the world they live in, and to learn the deeper truths.
Expression Number: 1 People with this name tend to initiate events, to be leaders rather than followers, with powerful personalities. They tend to be focused on specific goals, experience a wealth of creative new ideas, and have the ability to implement these ideas with efficiency and determination. They tend to be courageous and sometimes aggressive. As unique, creative individuals, they tend to resent authority, and are sometimes stubborn, proud, and impatient.
http://www.sheknows.com/baby-names/name/cabbon

What does Sudoku mean?

There are lots of theories as to what this means, but most state that this is an abbreviation of a sudoku term.

Loosely translated, it seems to be something about numerals that can go only in a single place.

This is because 'su' apparently means 'number' and 'duoku' is a bachelor. If you know any different, then let us know!

http://www.clarity-media.co.uk/puzzle-strategy/what-does-sudoku-mean
In Japanese it is written sūdoku (数独). The characters mean "number" () and "single" (doku). It is pronounced like "sue dock". However, the word "sudoku" is not in common use for these puzzles in Japan, and the word sūdoku is actually an invention.

Animal waste threatens water
Posted: Wednesday, August 13, 2014 9:51 am
To the editor,
Last weekend the drinking water of 400,000 Toledo, Ohio, residents was fouled by animal waste.
With unfettered growth of animal agriculture and ineffective discharge regulations, it will happen again in our own state.
The problem has become pervasive. Waste from chicken farms has rendered the ocean off the East Coast unfit for fishing.
Waste from Midwest cattle ranches carried by Mississippi River has created a permanent “dead zone” in the Gulf of Mexico larger than that of the infamous 2010 BP oil spill.
Animal agriculture dumps more pollution to our waterways than all other human activities combined.
Principal pollutants are animal manure, fertilizers, as well as soil particles, organic debris, and pesticides from feed cropland.
Manure and fertilizers promote growth of toxic algae that poison drinking water supplies.
Organic matter feeds microorganisms that deplete oxygen and kill fish.
Effective regulations to limit dumping of animal waste into water supplies have been blocked by the meat industry.
Fortunately, every one of us has the power to stop this outrage three times a day by saying “no” to polluting meat and dairy products.
Our local supermarket offers ample alternatives.
Entering “live vegan” in a search engine provides useful recipes and transition tips.
Cabbon Sudeko
Chatham
http://www.chathamstartribune.com/opinion/article_05dc9dcc-22f1-11e4-bdc5-001a4bcf887a.html

Addressing climate change starts at home, supermarket

Posted: Wednesday, November 5, 2014 9:16 am
Recently, hundreds of thousands marched throughout the world demanding action on climate change.
Some 120 world leaders gathered in New York for the United Nations’ Summit on Climate Change.
What can we do?
A 2006 U.N. report estimated that meat production accounts for 18 percent of manmade greenhouse gases.
A 2009 article in the respected World Watch magazine suggested that the contribution may be closer to 50 percent.
The meat industry generates carbon dioxide by burning forests to create animal pastures and by combustion of fossil fuels to confine, feed, transport, and slaughter animals.
The much more damaging methane and nitrous oxide are discharged from digestive tracts of cattle and from animal waste cesspools, respectively.
In an environmentally sustainable world, wind, solar, and other pollution-free energy sources must gradually replace polluting fossil fuels.
Similarly, vegetables, fruits, nuts, and grains must replace polluting meat and dairy products.
The large variety of widely available plant-based entrees, lunch meats, veggie burgers, cheeses, and ice creams can certainly help.
Our next trip to the supermarket is a great opportunity to start the transition to a sustainable world.
Our favorite Internet search engine offers ample product lists, recipes, and dietary tips.
Cabbon Sudeko
Chatham
http://www.chathamstartribune.com/opinion/article_6a7301c6-64f6-11e4-bef3-cf7944588cef.html?mode=print

Thursday, November 6, 2014

Local Citizens Group Granted Voice in Coal Ash Pollution Cases Against Duke Energy’s Mayo and Hyco Lake Facilities

Local Citizens Group Granted Voice in Coal Ash Pollution Cases Against Duke Energy’s Mayo and Hyco Lake Facilities

~~CHAPEL HILL, N.C.— A North Carolina Superior Court has allowed the Roanoke River Basin Association, represented by the Southern Environmental Law Center, to participate as a full party in an enforcement action with respect to two Duke Energy coal ash sites near the Virginia border: Roxboro Steam Station in Person County on Hyco Lake and Mayo Steam Station on Mayo Lake near Roxboro.  As a full party, RRBA will have the same rights as Duke Energy and DENR in the litigation.

“The state failed to ensure safe storage of Duke’s coal ash at 10 out of 14 sites, so citizen conservation groups have stepped in to finish the job,” said Frank Holleman, senior attorney at the Southern Environmental Law Center. “Every one of Duke Energy’s coal ash pits is illegally polluting North Carolina’s waters, and citizens are now enforcing the law at every single one of these sites.”

Numerous conservation groups are participating in the state court enforcement action for all the Duke Energy coal ash sites around North Carolina; RRBA previously joined the enforcement action as to the Dan River site, where Duke Energy’s disastrous coal ash spill occurred in February. The N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources brought the statewide enforcement actions last year in response to a Clean Water Act notice sent by the Southern Environmental Law Center on behalf of Cape Fear River Watch, Waterkeeper Alliance, and the Sierra Club.

“Duke stores a huge proportion its coal ash in leaking, unlined pits in the Roanoke River basin, and we must make certain that DENR takes the appropriate action to fix the problem,” said RRBA President Gene Addesso. “We will fight to ensure Duke is held accountable for illegally polluting the rivers and lakes of the Roanoke basin and that Duke’s coal ash is removed to lined, dry storage.”

The coal ash dams at both Roxboro and Mayo are High Hazard dams according to the state of North Carolina.  Duke stores 6.9 million tons of coal ash at its Mayo plant and 16.4 million tons at its Roxboro plant.  Scientists from Duke University have found elevated levels of arsenic and other coal ash pollution in Hyco Lake and Mayo Lake in recent years.  Fish deformities due to selenium coal ash poisoning have been found in Mayo Lake, and in 2008 a coal ash dam at Roxboro suffered a structural failure.

The coal ash legislation passed by the N.C. General Assembly this summer would allow DENR and a politically-appointed commission to decide whether coal ash can remain in place at these sites.  A federal criminal grand jury is investigating DENR’s relationship with Duke Energy.

###
About the Roanoke River Basin Association
The Roanoke River Basin Association is a non-profit organization based in Danville, Virginia, whose mission is to establish and carry out a strategy for the development, use, preservation and enhancement of the resources of the Roanoke River system of lakes and streams in the best interest of present and future generations.  RRBA consists of hundreds of members, primarily located within the 410-mile-long Roanoke River basin in Virginia and North Carolina, including local governments; non-profit, civic and community organizations; regional government entities; businesses and individuals.    http://prod.rrba.org/
.
About the Southern Environmental Law Center
The Southern Environmental Law Center is a regional nonprofit using the power of the law to protect the health and environment of the Southeast (Virginia, Tennessee, North and South Carolina, Georgia, and Alabama). Founded in 1986, SELC's team of more than 60 legal and policy experts represent more than 100 partner groups on issues of climate change and energy, air and water quality, forests, the coast and wetlands, transportation, and land use.
www.SouthernEnvironment.org

https://www.southernenvironment.org/news-and-press/press-releases/coal-ash-pollution-cases-against-duke-energy

Tuesday, November 4, 2014

Dominion Asks FERC To Begin Environmental Review Of Atlantic Coast Pipeline




Dominion Asks FERC To Begin Environmental Review Of Atlantic Coast Pipeline
 
Published: October 31, 2014 04:01 PM
The Providence Journal
Published: October 31 2014 04:01


RICHMOND, Va., Oct. 31, 2014 /PRNewswire/ -- Dominion , on behalf of its joint venture partners in the Atlantic Coast Pipeline, today submitted a request to begin the pre-filing process with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), asking the commission to begin its environmental review of the proposed $4.5 billion to $5 billion, 550-mile natural gas pipeline.

Four major U.S. energy companies - Dominion, Duke Energy , Piedmont Natural Gas and AGL Resources - plan to build and own the pipeline, which would run from Harrison County, W.Va., southeast through Virginia with an extension to Chesapeake, Va., and then south through eastern North Carolina to Robeson County. The pipeline would help meet the growing clean energy needs of Virginia and North Carolina by providing direct access to the burgeoning natural gas production in the Marcellus and Utica shale basins of West Virginia, Pennsylvania and Ohio.

"The broad and enthusiastic support we have received since announcing the project last month is further evidence of how important the Atlantic Coast Pipeline is to the future of the region," said Diane Leopold, president of the company's Dominion Energy business unit. "Along with creating thousands of jobs and millions of dollars in new tax revenues for states and localities, it can act as a catalyst for future economic development, help stabilize energy prices for consumers and businesses, and promote cleaner air."

Govs. Terry McAuliffe of Virginia, Earl Ray Tomblin of West Virginia and Pat McCrory of North Carolina each talked about the economic growth and jobs that are expected to occur along the pipeline when the project was announced Sept. 2. More than 30 federal, state, and local elected officials, and chamber of commerce or economic development groups have provided letters of support or passed resolutions in favor of the project. In addition, more than 5,500 letters of support have been received by elected officials in Virginia, West Virginia and North Carolina.

A study by Chmura Economics & Analytics estimates that the project can generate a total of $2.7 billion in economic impact from 2014 through 2019 in the three-state region, supporting 17,240 cumulative jobs.

The project also promises significant environmental benefits. Much of the natural gas to be transported by the pipeline will replace coal in the generation of electricity -- a transition that's already well under way in both Virginia and North Carolina as older, less efficient coal units are retired.

Natural gas burns cleaner than coal and emits about half the carbon dioxide.

From 2008 to 2013, demand for gas-fired electric power generation grew by 459 percent in North Carolina and 123 percent in Virginia. The U.S. Energy Information Administration's 2014 Annual Energy Outlook reported that overall, demand for natural gas for all uses grew by 50 and 37 percent in North Carolina and Virginia, respectively, between 2008 and 2012.

The extensive FERC review process that begins with pre-filing solicits input from numerous local, state and federal entities, and private citizens. Public safety, air quality, water resources, geology, soils, wildlife and vegetation, threatened and endangered species, land and visual resources, cultural and historic resources, noise, cumulative impacts and reasonable alternatives are fully examined. The project will need the approvals of 40 federal, state and local regulatory agencies before construction can begin.

"This is the formal beginning of a comprehensive and detailed review process by the FERC and other agencies that will examine this project from every angle," Leopold said. "It is an open process with many opportunities for participation by the public."

In the pre-filing request to the FERC, Dominion noted it has begun a wide-ranging outreach and education program for stakeholders.

So far, the program has included 13 informational open houses along the route attended by more than 3,600 people. Additional open houses will be scheduled for January 2015, followed by FERC-led scoping meetings shortly thereafter.

Informational packets also will be mailed to about 5,500 property owners along the proposed pipeline route and within a half-mile of potential compressor station locations.

Dominion is surveying to determine the best route, one that meets operational and reliability needs while minimizing the impact on the environment as well as historical and cultural resources.

The company expects to file its FERC application next summer, receive the FERC Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity in the summer of 2016 and begin construction shortly thereafter. The pipeline is expected to be in service by late 2018.

The main pipeline would have a 42-inch diameter in West Virginia and Virginia, reducing to 36 inches in diameter in North Carolina. Virginia and North Carolina have limited access to supplies from the Marcellus and Utica shales and have a need for increased infrastructure to support growing demand for natural gas-fired generation, and to add supply diversity for reliability and price stability.

More information about the Atlantic Coast Pipeline is available on the Web at dom.com/acpipeline and on Facebook at www.facebook.com/acpipeline

.
More information about the FERC pre-filing process is available at http://www.ferc.gov/help/processes/flow/gas-4.asp
 and http://www.ferc.gov/help/faqs/prefiling.asp
 .
About DominionDominion is one of the nation's largest producers and transporters of energy, with a portfolio of approximately 23,600 megawatts of generation, 10,900 miles of natural gas transmission, gathering and storage pipeline, and 6,400 miles of electric transmission lines. Dominion operates one of the nation's largest natural gas storage systems with 947 billion cubic feet of storage capacity and serves utility and retail energy customers in 10 states. For more information about Dominion, visit the company's website at www.dom.com
.
Media contact: Frank Mack, (804) 771-3141; frank.mack@dom.com
 Investor contact: Kristy Babcock, (804) 819-2492; kristy.r.babcock@dom.com

About Duke EnergyDuke Energy is the largest electric power holding company in the United States with approximately $115 billion in total assets. Its regulated utility operations serve approximately 7.2 million electric customers located in six states in the Southeast and Midwest. Its commercial power and international energy business segments own and operate diverse power generation assets in North America and Latin America, including a growing portfolio of renewable energy assets in the United States. Headquartered in Charlotte, N.C., Duke Energy is a Fortune 250 company traded on the New York Stock Exchange under the symbol DUK. More information about the company is available at: www.duke-energy.com
.
Media contact: Dave Scanzoni, (800) 559-3853Investor contact: Bill Currens, (704) 382-1603
About Piedmont Natural GasPiedmont Natural Gas is an energy services company primarily engaged in the distribution of natural gas to more than one million residential, commercial, industrial and power generation utility customers in portions of North Carolina, South Carolina and Tennessee, including customers served by municipalities who are wholesale customers. Our subsidiaries are invested in joint venture, energy-related businesses, including unregulated retail natural gas marketing, and regulated interstate natural gas transportation and storage, and regulated intrastate natural gas transportation businesses. More information about Piedmont Natural Gas is available on the Internet at http://www.piedmontng.com
/.
Media contact: David Trusty, (704) 731-4391, david.trusty@piedmontng.com
 Investor contact: Nick Giaimo, (704) 731-4952, nicholas.giaimo@piedmontng.com

About AGL Resources AGL Resources is an Atlanta-based energy services holding company with operations in natural gas distribution, retail operations, wholesale services and midstream operations. AGL Resources serves approximately 4.5 million utility customers through its regulated distribution subsidiaries in seven states. The company also serves approximately 630,000 retail energy customers and approximately 1.2 million customer service contracts through its SouthStar Energy Services joint venture and Pivotal Home Solutions, which market natural gas and related home services. Other non-utility businesses include asset management for natural gas wholesale customers through Sequent Energy Management and ownership and operation of natural gas storage facilities. AGL Resources is a member of the S&P 500 Index. For more information, visit www.aglresources.com
Media contact: Tami Gerke, (404) 584-3873, tgerke@aglresources.com
 Investor contact: Steve Cave, (404) 584-3801, scave@aglresources.com

This news release includes certain "forward-looking information." Examples include information as to our expectations, beliefs, plans, goals, objectives and future financial or other performance or assumptions concerning matters discussed in this release. Factors that could cause actual results to differ from those in the forward-looking statements may accompany the statements themselves. In addition, our business is influenced by many factors that are difficult to predict, involve uncertainties that may materially affect actual results and are often beyond our ability to control or estimate precisely, such as estimates of future market conditions, access to and costs of capital, the receipt of regulatory approvals for, and timing of, planned projects and compliance with conditions associated with such regulatory approvals, and the ability to complete planned construction or expansion projects within the terms and timeframes initially anticipated. We have identified and will in the future identify a number of these factors in our SEC Reports on Forms 10-K and 10-Q. We refer you to those discussions for further information. Any forward-looking statement speaks only as of the date on which it is made, and we undertake no obligation to update any forward-looking statement to reflect events or circumstances after the date on which it is made.
http://www.providencejournal.com/business/press-releases/20141031-dominion-asks-ferc-to-begin-environmental-review-of-atlantic-coast-pipeline.ece
 

Monday, November 3, 2014

Landowners seek legal rights in pipeline dispute

  

Landowners seek legal rights in pipeline dispute

Posted: Oct 28, 2014 11:13 PM EDT Updated: Oct 28, 2014 11:16 PM EDT

Friday, October 31, 2014


Mountain Valley Pipeline sponsors have submitted a pre-filing request to FERC.

Also for your future reference, the Docket No. is PF15-3. All the docs and correspondence filed in regard to this project can be accessed through eLibrary at
FERC General Searchhttp://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/search/results.asp






Category/
Accession
Doc Date/
Filed Date
Docket
Number
DescriptionClass/
Type
FilesSize




 
Submittal
20141029-5000
10/28/2014
10/29/2014
PF15-3-000Comment of Kirsti Kaldro in Docket(s)/Project(s) PF15-3. Submission Date: 10/28/2014
Availability: Public
Comments/Protest /
Comment on Filing

 Text    0K

 FERC Generated PDF    8K
INFO

FILE
Submittal
20141029-5005
10/28/2014
10/29/2014
PF15-3-000Comment of Kirsti Kaldro concerning the Mountain Valley Pipeline Project under PF15-3.
Availability: Public
Comments/Protest /
Comment on Filing

 Word    13K

 FERC Generated PDF    7K
INFO

FILE
Submittal
20141029-5085
10/29/2014
10/29/2014
PF15-3-000Comment of William Corn in Docket(s)/Project(s) PF15-3-000 Submission Date: 10/29/2014
Availability: Public
Comments/Protest /
Comment on Filing

 Text    0K

 FERC Generated PDF    7K
INFO

FILE
Submittal
20141027-0030
10/22/2014
10/27/2014
PF15-3-000Comments of Tom Hoffman re the Mountain Valley Pipeline Project under PF15-3.
Availability: Public
Comments/Protest /
Comment on Filing

 Image    33K

 FERC Generated PDF    42K
INFO

FILE
Submittal
20141027-0033
10/20/2014
10/27/2014
PF15-3-000Comments of Sharon Parker re the proposed Mountain Valley Pipeline Project under PF15-3.
Availability: Public
Comments/Protest /
Comment on Filing

 Image    47K

 FERC Generated PDF    57K
INFO

FILE
Submittal
20141027-0034
10/19/2014
10/27/2014
PF15-3-000Comments of Robert K. Johnson et al re the proposed Mountain Valley Pipeline Project under PF15-3.
Availability: Public
Comments/Protest /
Comment on Filing

 Image    35K

 FERC Generated PDF    43K
INFO

FILE
Submittal
20141027-5073
10/27/2014
10/27/2014
PF15-3-000Report of Mountain Valley Pipeline LLC Request to Initiate NEPA Pre-Filing Process under PF15-3.
Availability: Public
Report/Form /
157.207 Annual Construction Report

 PDF    401K

 PDF    284K

 PDF    39K

 PDF    76K

 PDF    89K

 PDF    142K

 FERC Generated PDF    1060K
INFO

FILE
Submittal
20141027-5136
10/27/2014
10/27/2014
PF15-3-000Pre-Filing Request of Mountain Valley Pipeline LLC Pre-Filing Request under PF15-3.
Availability: Public
Applicant Correspondence /
Supplemental/Additional Information

 PDF    217K

 PDF    284K

 PDF    39K

 PDF    76K

 PDF    89K

 PDF    142K

 FERC Generated PDF    905K
INFO


Meeting: Mountain Valley Pipeline – Presentation on gas line project




PITTSYLVANIA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
REGULAR MEETING

 
 
 
MONDAY, NOVEMBER 3, 2014
GENERAL DISTRICT COURTROOM
EDWIN R. SHIELDS COURTHOUSE ADDITION
AGENDA


1. Call to Order – 7:00 p.m.
2. Roll Call
3. Pledge of Allegiance
4. Items to be added to the Agenda
(a)

APPROVAL OF AGENDA
HEARING OF CITIZENS
CONSENT AGENDA


5. (a) Minutes: October 1, 2014 – Work Session
October 6, 2014 – Regular Meeting
October 7, 2014 – Work Session
October 21, 2014 – Adjourned Meeting


(b) Bill List – October 2014 (Online)


(c) Holiday Time
(d) Fire & Rescue Insurance – Statement by Public Body

PUBLIC HEARINGS


6. Public Hearing to receive citizen input on a proposed amendment to Pittsylvania County Code ("PCC") § 8-4.1, Term of Office that would with incorporate staggered terms for the Pittsylvania County Board of Supervisors beginning the November 2015 General Election.
7. Public Hearing to receive citizen input on proposed amendments to Pittsylvania County Code ("PCC") § 9-54, Failure to Pay License Fee, Personal Property Tax, Etc.; Penalty. Specifically, the following amendments are proposed to § 9-54 (A) and (B) to include license fees and/or personal property taxes that would be considered delinquent after June 5; and § 9-54 (C) § 9-54 violations of to be reduced from a Class 4 misdemeanor with a $250 fine to a civil fine of 25.

PRESENTATIONS


8. Mountain Valley Pipeline – Presentation on gas line project
9. Danville-Pittsylvania Community Services Board FY2013/14 Annual Report
& Annual Services Contract
10. Delinquent Tax Collections – M. Kate Berger, Treasurer
11. Economic Development Strategy Plan – Staff presentation

NEW BUSINESS


12. Request for Public Hearing – Proposed First Responder Fees
13. Department of Motor Vehicles – Pet Friendly Tags Fund
14. Appropriation for Feasibility Analysis – Tank Museum
APPOINTMENTS
15. Nominations – Pittsylvania County Building Code Board of Appeals; Chatham/Blairs, Staunton River, and Tunstall Electoral Districts

BOARD ANNOUNCEMENTS
REPORTS FROM LEGAL COUNSEL
REPORTS FROM COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
ADJOURNMENT

Thursday, October 30, 2014

Too Many Pipelines: Not Needed




Comments:  Please write FERC with your concerns, why do we need 3 pipelines going the same way?  It appears that a former pipeline runs thru a proposed uranium mining, will it be moved?  So it Pittsylvania County, TRANSCO will be receiving gas from Mountain View and Sunset going to Lawrenceville, VA.....so why two pipelines going the same way?

Look at the pipelines:

Environmental Assessment for the Leidy Southeast Expansion Project (CP13-551)
Issued August 11, 2014 :       http://www.ferc.gov/industries/gas/enviro/eis/2014/08-11-14-ea.asp

     transco simple map

Leidy Southeast Expansion Project Environmental Assessment


M&R Stations
Columbia Gas of Virginia - AltaVista M&R Station Pittsylvania County, VA <0.1 <0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 <0.1
Pittsylvania, VA Central Virginia Intrastate (81.143) CO, NO2, O3, Pb, PM10, PM2.5, SO2 none
Pittsylvania, VA 0.3 2.4 0.2 / 0.2 0.2 4.8
165 Pittsylvania, VA Mainline 1413.0 Install deodorization facilities that filter odorant from gas streamprior to any planned release.
 



 



Pipeline company moves to initiate federal review of proposal

By Duncan Adams duncan.adams@roanoke.com 981-3324 | Posted: Tuesday, October 28, 2014 8:00 pm
Mountain Valley Pipeline LLC asked the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission on Monday to begin its informal review of the company’s proposed 300-mile interstate natural gas transmission pipeline.

As envisioned, the $3 billion-plus pipeline project, a joint venture of EQT Corp. and NextEra Energy, would pump natural gas at high pressure through a 42-inch diameter pipe from northwestern West Virginia to southern Virginia. Mountain Valley had previously said the pipeline would be either 36 inches in diameter or 42 inches, but the larger diameter was specified in Monday’s FERC filing.

The proposed pipeline route would take it through 16 counties, including five in Virginia: Giles, Montgomery, Roanoke, Franklin and Pittsylvania.

On Monday, Mountain Valley asked FERC to initiate the agency’s pre-filing process. Tamara Young-Allen, a spokeswoman for FERC, said the process is designed to engage stakeholders, including landowners as well as local, state and federal agencies, to “identify and resolve issues before the formal filing of an application with the commission.”

Mountain Valley, which would need FERC approval to proceed to construction, said it plans to file a formal application sometime in late October or early November 2015. The company reported plans to begin construction in January 2017 and bring the pipeline into service in December 2018.

FERC has assigned a docket number — PF15-3 — for Mountain Valley’s submission and related documents. The docket number provides online access to the pipeline’s filings at FERC.gov and an opportunity to comment on and follow project filings at www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ferconline.asp.

As of Tuesday, comments filed included three letters expressing opposition to the pipeline. The authors live in Giles County, Blacksburg and Roanoke County. They cited a host of concerns, ranging from groundwater contamination and other environmental damage to fears about pipeline safety hazards and impact on property values.

Natalie Cox, a spokeswoman for EQT Corp., said Tuesday that as of Oct. 24, Mountain Valley Pipeline had contacted a total of 1,725 landowners, including 700 in Virginia, to seek permission to access their land to consider it for the pipeline route.

In an email, Cox reported, “We have received authorization to survey property from approximately 80 percent of landowners on the proposed route.” About 10 percent have denied permission, she said. The remaining 10 percent includes landowners earmarked for follow-up contact, Cox said.

She said Mountain Valley envisions holding open houses in December and January in counties along the pipeline route to discuss the project and address concerns. FERC staff will participate in these events as part of the pre-filing process.

The pipeline would transport natural gas extracted through hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, from Marcellus and Utica shale formations in northern West Virginia, southwestern Pennsylvania and Ohio. The delivery point would be a compressor station for the Transcontinental transmission pipeline in Pittsylvania County.

EQT Corp. and NextEra Energy have said the Mountain Valley Pipeline will meet demand for natural gas in the mid-Atlantic and Southeast regions of the United States.

The joint venture has not denied that some of the natural gas might end up being exported.
“Our primary goal is to deliver gas from the Marcellus and Utica [shales] to communities along the proposed Mountain Valley Pipeline route,” Cox said in an email.

“However, it would be disingenuous for us to say that we have control over what happens with the gas once it reaches Transco Station 165 in Chatham, Virginia,” she wrote.