Sean CastenJun 26, 2023
MVP spokesperson says it will lower costs. Gas industry analyst points out (correctly) that the purpose of MVP is to sell gas at a higher price, thus raising prices in Appalachia. And EIA notes gas use will fall with rising renewables. This is US energy policy in a nutshell.
Show threadSean Casten
Source for that article suggests that MVP utilization will be lower than forecast because of supply / demand constraints in gas delivery. I don't know enough about that to say whether right or wrong. https://www.herald-dispatch.com/news/economic-need-for-mountain-valley-pipeline-questioned/article_cd457cb2-9cd5-55d3-b4c8-635c5592843d.html?utm_medium=email
Economic need for Mountain Valley Pipeline questioned

Mountain Valley Pipeline supporters have suggested it’s a given that the congressionally fast-tracked project will be a massive boost for American energy supply and delivery.

The Herald-Dispatch
Jun 26, 2023 at 1:21pmWeb
Show threadSean CastenJun 26, 2023
But the larger point is a continuing bee in my bonnet. No industry seeks to sell their product for less money. There's nothing wrong with that per se. But the O&G sector consistently pushes for projects saying it will help consumers - and too many of my colleagues believe them
Show threadSean CastenJun 26, 2023
If you are sitting on a very low cost source of energy with limited nearby markets (Saudi oil, Appalachian gas) it is in your economic interest to export. So that you can make more money selling to others. Not so you can lower prices to the locals.
Show threadSean CastenJun 26, 2023
Writ large, this is the story of the US gas industry over the last decade. GDP is up 50% since 2010 but domestic gas use is only up 25%. Growth in gas has come through exports. Americans are getting more wealth with less gas because of cheaper efficiency and renewables
Show threadSean CastenJun 26, 2023
So the gas industry wants to build pipes to get that gas out to the coasts to LNG terminals so they can sell it abroad for a higher price. There is an honest foreign policy conversation to be had there. But not if we lie and say this will lower US gas prices.
Show threadSean CastenJun 26, 2023
The recent deal to fast track MVP had NOTHING to do with the interests of US energy consumers and everything to do with the interests of US energy producers. We've got to stop confusing the interests of the two. /fin
Show threadDavie DuckJun 26, 2023
@SeanCasten There is no confusion. Those making the decisions know exactly what they are doing. It’s the #GoldenRule: if you have the gold, you make the rule.
Show threadPedestrianError  Jun 26, 2023
@wackyIdeas @SeanCasten There is confusion among the people voting these corporate shills into office.
Show threadDavie DuckJun 26, 2023
@PedestrianError @SeanCasten Yup. Chickens voting for Colonel Sanders is what we call this phenomenon in the US south.
Show threadPedestrianError  Jun 26, 2023
@wackyIdeas @SeanCasten What do we call urban Democrats who vote for the city council candidate who’s good at telling jokes about Trump voters and dancing with cops at the local corporate pride parade instead of the one who will work to get fossil fuel infrastructure like gas stoves and car amenities out of the city?
Show threadDavie DuckJun 26, 2023
@PedestrianError @SeanCasten I believe the technical term is #ShitPimple
Show threadKaryn CampbellJun 26, 2023
@SeanCasten How unsafe is this as well? We're fighting big energy here in Central Illinois onCCTS and CO2 pipelines. The pipelines are unsafe at any price and companies don't want to wait for increased federal safety standards for these things. This will use more fossil fuel to boot. We've already seen what happens when there is a leak or rupture of one of these pipelines. Just look at Satartia, MS in February 2020. We don't even know the long-term health affects yet.
Show threadGregory HaysJun 26, 2023
@SeanCasten Too many of your colleagues pretend to believe them.