National Security, West Virginia Natural Gas and Hampton Roads – A Proposed Federal Law

Senator Manchin

by James C. Sherlock

This is the fourth in a series of columns recommending bringing West Virginia natural gas to Virginia and from there to our allies.  

The only way to do get that done with any assurance and speed under the energy emergency in which we find ourselves and the world is for a federal law to be passed that:

  • strips jurisdiction from federal courts over this specific pipeline because of national security requirements;
  • includes and similarly protects from lawsuits a new LNG terminal on either federal land or in the Port of Virginia or, helpfully, one or more floating LNG (FLNG) facilities offshore;
  • directs federal regulatory agencies to work in partnership with developers to ensure the work meets environmental standards; and
  • authorizes the costs as an expenditure for the Department of Energy.

I have made that recommendation to Sen. Manchin’s Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee. Read Chairman Manchin’s opening remarks yesterday to his committee yesterday. You will consider Sen. Manchin to be a potential yes on the proposal.

Committee attorneys can figure out the jurisdiction stripping language. They can also determine whether a federal law that strips jurisdiction from federal courts will also protect the project from state courts under the Supremacy Clause or additional language is needed.

Background. Since the start of the war in Ukraine, Republicans and many Democrats are looking for ways to boost U.S. production of energy.  

Virginia and our allies need more natural gas. West Virginia has it. The Marcellus shale has by far the largest potential national gas reserves in the United States.  Additionally, the U.S. Energy Information Agency has written that West Virginia needs to export more of it to maintain the long-term health of the industry in that state.

Key facts of transporting that gas to Europe are these:

  • LNG ships return empty.  Vessel charter payments must cover the fuel cost of ballasting the vessel back to load port; and
  • The distance between Norfolk and Bremerhaven is 3651 NM on sea and journey time at 13 knots is 11 days 16 hours; as opposed to
  • The distance between Port Arthur and Bremerhaven is 5104 NM on sea and journey time at 13 knots is 16 days 8 hours.

So it is not only cheaper to transport LNG from Norfolk to Europe than from the Gulf of Mexico, crucially it takes many fewer LNG ships to transport the same amount of gas to Europe from Norfolk.

Three different pipelines were proposed in 2014 to bring West Virginia gas to Virginia. All are either cancelled or on hold. Each has been plagued with lawsuits and adverse court decisions on pipelines by the federal 4th Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond. That court has consistently overruled the findings of the federal agencies responsible for certification of those pipelines.  

The Supreme Court has concluded as late as 2018 that Congress possesses largely “plenary” authority to determine what sorts of cases the federal courts may and may not hear. It is called jurisdiction stripping.

Offshore LNG facility. There are already floating LNG (FLNG) projects in Australia, Malaysia and Columbia. Those projects pipe the natural gas through a subsea pipeline to moored facilities.

Floating LNG terminal – Courtesy Repsol

Proposal. I have a proposed to the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee a bill that:

  • provides for a natural gas pipeline from West Virginia to Hampton Roads either on the mostly approved route of the abandoned Atlantic Coast Pipeline or a new route using state land in interstate highway corridors. I-64 runs directly from West Virginia to Hampton Roads. On June 29, 2021, the Supreme Court decided PennEast Pipeline Co. v New Jersey, 594 U.S. __ (2021). The Court held that the Federal Government had properly delegated to private companies’ federal authority to condemn necessary rights-of-way in state owned property;
  • provides one or more new LNG terminals in Hampton Roads;
  • includes language to strip jurisdiction from federal courts;
  • directs federal approval authorities to act in cooperation with the engineers of the pipeline and LNG terminal to ensure they meet federal environmental standards rather than rule after the fact.
  • authorizes the costs as an expenditure for the Department of Energy

We’ll see what the Senate does.

The President and the House would be put under tremendous pressure to support such a bill. Especially if it held hostage what has been usually in recent years an omnibus appropriations act.  

Both NATO and Vladimir Putin would be watching.

Virginians would watch to see how our Congressional delegation votes. Before the fall elections.


Share this article



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)


Comments

40 responses to “National Security, West Virginia Natural Gas and Hampton Roads – A Proposed Federal Law”

  1. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
    Dick Hall-Sizemore

    Obviously, some private companies would realize a great deal of profit from such a pipeline. Why should taxpayers pay for it?

    Maybe the President could include these provisions in the Build Back Better legislation as a carrot for Manchin’s support.

    1. You mean unlike the so called vaccinations?

      1. how_it_works Avatar
        how_it_works

        Some people like Big Pharma more than they do Big Oil.

    2. Nancy Naive Avatar
      Nancy Naive

      Pipelines, bridge-tunnels, and stadiums — privatizing public dollars

    3. James C. Sherlock Avatar
      James C. Sherlock

      There are several ways that the federal government could recoup the investment. The most obvious is recouping it the same way the pipeline companies do, collecting tolls on throughput. The feds could lease the operation to a pipeline company under contract and collect a share of the tolls. Same with the LNG terminal.

  2. beachguy Avatar
    beachguy

    A wonderful proposal. It helps our allies in Europe, provides well paying jobs, and helps the United States become energy independent….again.

    1. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
      Dick Hall-Sizemore

      We have the capacity to be energy independent now. We export more energy than we import. And how would providing natural gas to Europe make us energy independent?

    2. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
      Dick Hall-Sizemore

      We have the capacity to be energy independent now. We export more energy than we import. And how would providing natural gas to Europe make us energy independent?

  3. Great idea, but this will never happen since this administration believes the most catastrophic result of this war is the environmental emissions coming from the war zone…. as per Biden’s whiz kid Kerry.

    1. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
      Dick Hall-Sizemore

      What is the basis of this astounding claim?

    2. energyNOW_Fan Avatar
      energyNOW_Fan

      US fossil fuels industry still the world’s greatest villains and climate change is still the greatest issue we face, according to one side of the debate. Hopefully we can get some new enemies going, but at the moment “we have met the enemy and he is us.”

      1. Thousands of Syrians and Ukrainians killed by climate change!!!!

  4. Nancy Naive Avatar
    Nancy Naive

    And coal…

  5. vicnicholls Avatar
    vicnicholls

    Excellent job as always Capt!

  6. Interesting idea. I share Sherlock’s interest in using natural gas as a tool to advance U.S. geopolitical interests, I like the idea of using LNG as a tool to promote economic activity in Hampton Roads, and I agree with him that environmentalist lawfare has made it all but impossible to build energy infrastructure in Virginia under the current legal framework.

    On the other hand, as someone who fears above all else the abuse of federal executive powers, I see the courts as a barrier to autocratic rule against executive authority… even when the courts in question are stacked with liberals. Classify me as conflicted.

    1. James C. Sherlock Avatar
      James C. Sherlock

      I would be conflicted as well, had not lawsuits proven an insurmountable obstacle to pipelines.

      We can honor the principle, or carve out a national security exception. It bothers me at the theoretical level, but I choose to recommend a carve out in this case. It cannot wait for a decade. And it is a national security issue.

      We built the interstates as a national security project. Few remember it, but the initial portions of the interstate system paralleled each coast and touched the army bases on each coast to allow our then million-man army mobility and logistical support in the case of invasion.

      The routes of the entire initial system were designed to support national defense. https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/facility/ndhs.htm#:~:text=In%201956%20President%20Eisenhower%20signed%20legislation%20establishing%20the,designed%20to%20move%20military%20equipment%20and%20personnel%20efficiently

      This project and the bill that I recommend are insignificant in the face of that history, but they are and will be important for the next 40 years.

  7. David Wojick Avatar
    David Wojick

    Has DOE ever built a pipeline? They build our nuclear weapons, but public works? The Corps of Engineers might be better since civil works has been their domain since Washington had them pull the snags out of Baltimore harbor.

    1. James C. Sherlock Avatar
      James C. Sherlock

      Good question. I am recommending the DOE budget for the money, especially because Sen. Manchin is Chairman of the authorizing committee, but I expect USACE would certainly be their go-to engineering manager. There is really no other choice. Just like DOE outsources the building of weapons.

    2. James C. Sherlock Avatar
      James C. Sherlock

      Good question. I am recommending the DOE budget for the money, especially because Sen. Manchin is Chairman of the authorizing committee, but I expect USACE would certainly be their go-to engineering manager. There is really no other choice. Just like DOE outsources the building of weapons to its labs and their contractors.

    3. energyNOW_Fan Avatar
      energyNOW_Fan

      Hoover Dam and other Pacific North West hydro is my analogy. Sheesh Cali claims to be green but a lot of that is due to Uncle Sam building all the free hydro out there. Cheap electrons too. Gimme some of that.

      1. David Wojick Avatar
        David Wojick

        There are lots of federal dams (I used to design them in Pittsburgh) mostly by the Corps, BuRec, Ag, BPA and TVA. DOE not so much. Given the supposed national security implications the Feds could certainly start building pipelines. For that matter, DoD has lots of engineering and construction talent besides the Corp. NavFac for example.

        1. energyNOW_Fan Avatar
          energyNOW_Fan

          David I am from Pgh

          1. David Wojick Avatar
            David Wojick

            I got my start there. One of my dams became a NEPA test case and in the ensuing confusion I discovered the fundamental logical form of complex issues.
            Here is the story: http://www.stemed.info/engineer_tackles_confusion.html

  8. energyNOW_Fan Avatar
    energyNOW_Fan

    I would not be opposed to that if it made sense. We have to realize the big LNG export plants are new and they are in Texas and Louisiana.

    It is a little hard to remember, but barely 10 -15 years ago, U.S. industry was planning to build huge new plants to *import* LNG natural gas to the US. Fracking caused a complete upset to those plans. So the new plants to export LNG had to be built, and are just coming online now and over last few years.

    Sure it would be good to get a piece of that action, but liberals view that as “dirty industry not worthy of existing” so we need an attitude check and attitude change. Otherwise we let the petrochemical states handle it.

    1. James C. Sherlock Avatar
      James C. Sherlock

      The LNG terminals newly built and pending built already have customers. They do not have anything like the spare capacity to deal with this.

  9. Stephen Haner Avatar
    Stephen Haner

    Comment Removed

    1. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
      Dick Hall-Sizemore

      That would be fine with me if government reaped all the financial rewards. I assumed that the proposal was to reinvigorate the Atlantic Coast Pipeline.

    2. James C. Sherlock Avatar
      James C. Sherlock

      response removed

      1. Stephen Haner Avatar
        Stephen Haner

        The Europeans have all the shale gas they need, incredible amounts. Gazprom has spent two decades funding the propaganda that fed the political movements that forced them not to use fracking. They reverse course and they don’t need a lick of our gas. We need our gas. Your idea is nonsense.

        1. James C. Sherlock Avatar
          James C. Sherlock

          “Nonsense”. I assume that is a collegial way of saying that you disagree with the option I offered.

          You appear to think that Europe will quickly drain what is 100 years worth of U.S. reserves if we export 4% of our annual utilization.

          So does Nancy.

          I have more faith in technology than that. But perhaps I am wrong. Thank you for your input.

        2. James C. Sherlock Avatar
          James C. Sherlock

          “Nonsense”. I assume that is a collegial way of saying that you disagree with the option I offered.

          You appear to think that Europe will quickly drain what is 100 years worth of U.S. reserves if we export 4% of our annual utilization.

          So does Nancy.

          I have more faith in technology than that. But perhaps I am wrong. Thank you for your input.

  10. Joe Jeeva Abbate Avatar
    Joe Jeeva Abbate

    Also important to note here is the fact that not one additional gas pipeline is required to supply our LNG terminals. Existing pipelines distribute to all capable export LNG terminals. There are more than 160 LNG facilities operating in the U.S. performing a variety of services. Some facilities export natural gas from the U.S., some provide natural gas supply to the interstate pipeline system or local distribution companies, while others are used to store natural gas for periods of peak demand. The United States maintains about 2 million miles of natural gas distribution mains and pipelines, 321,000 miles of gas transmission and gathering pipelines, 175,000 miles hazardous liquid pipeline, and 160 active liquid natural gas plants that are connected to natural gas transmission and distribution systems.

    All that is needed, and this is why Sen. Manchin would like to open up many more of his WV well heads previously shut down, is to open up shut down wells for production. The gas can then run on existing pipelines (like the Williams Transco pipeline) right to the LNG terminals and thus via ships to the overseas markets. While you will not be able to factual support any need for jamming the unneeded ACP or the MVP pipeline projects back into place for national security or to exact revenge against those pesky greens utilizing science and justice to regulate the profiteering attempted by pipeline builders, you certainly can continue your name calling and ignoring of climate science. The large utilities have already moved on and are powering the transition to a profitable renewable energy market, supplying less costly energy to consumers in many regions, and providing necessary natural gas as necessary for the transition.

    1. James C. Sherlock Avatar
      James C. Sherlock

      Joe, you continue to join these discussions without the facts. You opine on what Sen. Manchin would like. I suggest you read his remarks to the head of the FERC at the hearing yesterday. The link is in the text of my article. Go to the part where Sen. Manchin says the problem is that they can’t get the gas out of West Virginia and see if that aligns with your comment about the gas being able to run on existing pipelines. It does not. You have no idea what you are talking about here.

      1. Joe Jeeva Abbate Avatar
        Joe Jeeva Abbate

        James, I have researched where the gas would be distributed by any new massive pipeline to be put into operation out of WV. For instance, the MVP pipeline would duplicate the already existing pipeline, the Williams Transco pipeline, in distributing to areas that already receive gas from Transco. The gas piped via the MVP would have to be priced above the current cost to existing ratepayers to cover the incredible overrun costs and the basic cost for a pipeline that simply is not needed. Since these pipelines are built in a cost plus contract situation w/FERC, it would be a great opportunity for the MVP LLC to profit. The claim by Manchin is a simple nod to those corporations providing him support, and should be considered along with Duke and Dominion’s factually incorrect claims that the ACP was so desperately needed by the same communities already receiving cheaper gas from the Transco pipeline. You should try getting the real numbers and data before attacking someone who has studied the FERC Pipeline submissions from both the ACP and MVP. I am open to any data correction that you may find, but claiming that I am wrong because Manchin disagrees with me is weak and disregards Manchin’s political situation. Try facts. Thanks for the discussion.

        1. James C. Sherlock Avatar
          James C. Sherlock

          “to cover the incredible overrun costs”. What is your assessment of the source of these overrun costs, including the time value of money?

    2. energyNOW_Fan Avatar
      energyNOW_Fan

      160 LNG? Liquified nat gas is very hard to do on a large scale. For export we have several new big LNG plants on the Gulf Coast. Maryland has a revamped import LNG plant from I dunno 1970 when it looked like we would start to import LNG, but it did not happen.

  11. beachguy Avatar
    beachguy

    If all US automobiles were running on natural gas, our carbon footprint would be dramatically lower than it is today. West Coast UPS truck fleets converted to natural gas many years ago. LNG is a wonderful transition fuel to use until renewable energy becomes more mainstream.

    1. energyNOW_Fan Avatar
      energyNOW_Fan

      or CNG (compressed nat gas)

  12. energyNOW_Fan Avatar
    energyNOW_Fan

    Read somewhere yesterday that the Biden Admin has been delaying several pending proposals for new LNG export plants.

    Seems to me first step MVP should be approved soon unless I am missing some fatal flaw in the project.

    1. No fatal flaw — except for the Russian support of the eco-warriors.

Leave a Reply