ESG Movement Bodes Ill for Electricity Market and Supply Chains
In September MDN brought you a fantastic column by Paul Driessen, a senior policy advisor for CFACT (Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow, a Washington, D.C. think tank), taking aim at so-called ESG, or environment, social, and governance programs, that are all the rage these days (see The ESG Emperor has No Clothes – Will Anyone Else Say So?). We have another terrific column from CFACT about ESG, this time written by Ronald Stein, author, engineer, and energy expert. Stein writes that ESG programs are forcing underinvestment in energy infrastructure, and that underinvestment is helping to create the current energy crisis and the crisis in our supply chains.
Read More “ESG Movement Bodes Ill for Electricity Market and Supply Chains”
Has it really come to this? If a utility company that’s being attacked by anti-drilling zealots (Environmental Defense Fund) with help from a colluding federal court (U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit) dares to warn its customers they may experience an outage this winter because of the government closing down a critical natural gas pipeline, the utility company is put on the hot seat and made out to be the villain! Blame the victim!! Free speech is now under attack everywhere.
Last week the federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) launched what we consider a full-on attack against the oil and gas industry when it unveiled new methane regulations (see 
If you have even the most basic education in economics (Econ 101) you will have come across the concept of commodities–things like gold, silver, corn, soybeans, oil, and (yes) natural gas. A commodity is something that no matter who produces it, the product itself is the same. A molecule of methane (CH4) is a molecule of methane, no matter who or how it gets produced. Consequently, the only factors that drive price for a commodity are availability and whoever has the lowest cost. Efforts to pretty up a commodity like natgas by claiming it is “responsibly sourced gas” (RSG), or it comes from the butt holes of cows and pigs and chickens (RNG), or is carbon-neutral LNG, are efforts to (in our opinion) snooker people into paying more for what is a garden-variety commodity. Are there people/companies willing to pay more if natgas is produced in a certain way or from a certain source?
The current futures contract for NYMEX natural gas priced at the Henry Hub trading location, called the “front month” (of December), was down for the third trading day in a row yesterday. The December contract fell 45 cents (8.26%) to $4.98 per MMBtu–the first time it has slipped under $5 since October 21. Where might the price be heading next?
In August 2020 when Range Resources, the very first company to sink a Marcellus well back in 2004, issued its annual Corporate Sustainability Report (CSR), the company laid out a goal of achieving so-called net-zero carbon emissions by 2025 (see 
Piedmont Natural Gas, which is owned by Duke Energy, plans to build a small, 12-mile natural gas pipeline in northern Greenville County, SC. The company has about 90,000 customers in Greenville County right now and expects to add about 44,000 more over the next 20 years. Piedmont tends to run short on natural gas supplies now on the coldest days during winter. The pipeline will help meet demand now and in the future. Piedmont has just announced the route the pipeline will take, which is parallel to State Route 290, minimizing disturbance to the environment. Yet environmentalist wackos are opposed due to an irrational hatred of fossil fuels.
We’ve seen the name a few times over the years, but Abarta Energy (aka Abarta Oil & Gas Co.) has not appeared on our radar often. The privately-owned company is based in Pittsburgh and owns (did own) assets, including wells and pipeline systems, in Pennsylvania, West Virginia, and Kentucky. On Sunday Abarta filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy, reporting liabilities of $25.4 million and assets of $4.2 million. Abarta says it wants to liquidate/sell all of its remaining oil and gas assets.
What do you think of this one? The Pennsylvania Dept. of Environmental Protection (DEP) is launching a “favorites” list for Marcellus drilling and pipeline companies. You can earn yourself onto the list to get special treatment if you go to the extraordinary (and very expensive) lengths to do things the DEP wants you to do–things *not* required under current law, like “plugging abandoned oil wells, powering equipment with renewable energy, improving water quality in historically polluted streams and planting trees to offset greenhouse gas emissions.” Your reward for landing on the attaboy list? Your application for building a well pad or pipeline corridor will move to the top of the stack for review, leapfrogging those in line for a standard review. In other words, you’ll get the treatment the law guarantees (14 days for an erosion permit review) instead of the months and months of delays (in violation of the law) you get now. What a deal.
We have some exciting, and exclusive, news to share with the MDN audience. We previously told you that the Ohio Dept. of Natural Resources (ODNR) was behaving like a child, dragging its collective heels to prevent two side-by-side injection wells in Belmont County developed by Omni Energy from beginning operation (see 
In January 2016, Invenergy announced its intention to build a natgas-powered electric plant in Elizabeth Township, in Allegheny County (see 
We were encouraged in September when the Connecticut State Supreme Court upheld the Connecticut Siting Council’s approval for NTE Energy’s proposed project to build a 650-megawatt natural gas-fired electric plant in Killingly, CT (see