Atlantic Coast Pipeline Story Archives - West Virginia Public Broadcasting

Gas Group’s Chief Talks About MVP, Carbon And Coal Competition

Curtis Tate spoke with Charlie Burd, president of the West Virginia Gas and Oil Association, about the state’s role in supplying the global market.

The United States exported a record volume of natural gas in 2023, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. Curtis Tate spoke with Charlie Burd, president of the West Virginia Gas and Oil Association, about the state’s role in supplying the global market.

This interview has been edited for length and clarity.

Tate: Who are the biggest natural gas players in West Virginia? Where does the gas go?

Burd: We have two of the largest natural gas producers in the country operating in West Virginia. Actually, EQT is the largest natural gas producer in the country. And Antero resources is the largest natural gas producer in West Virginia. And I believe I heard the number that about a third of our production here in the state, and we produce just less than 3 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. It was 2.8 in 2022. And I’ve heard during the legislative session, that number may top 3 trillion for 2023. I haven’t seen those numbers yet. Because the reports aren’t due until like April, mid-April, but about a third, I believe, of our production is transported east to be converted into liquefied natural gas to be shipped across the oceans to our allies.

Tate: Hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, was a game changer. When did production take off?

Burd: I think the first well was drilled in December of 2007, put into production in 2008. That was a Chesapeake well. We produced 256 (billion cubic feet) of natural gas. And now we’re producing round numbers that say 3 trillion cubic feet. So that’s where it started. And that’s where we are. And it has greatly increased from year to year. That 3 TCF, 96 percent of that comes from probably about 4,600 horizontal wells in 2022, 2.85 trillion cubic feet from 4,500 wells. And I think we’ve added about 100 wells. I won’t have the exact numbers for a couple of weeks. That’s where it all came from.

Tate: Where is the production concentrated?

Burd: If you were to look at a map of West Virginia, and look at I-79, which literally dissects the state almost straight up the middle of north and south. When you get to about Braxton County, and it all goes to the northwest. That’s where the wet play is. That’s where the more enriched natural gas with propane and ethane is, if you’re again using that as a kind of a guide, using 79 as a guide, anything to the east of 79 is pretty much in a dry play. It’s almost pipeline quality gas coming out of the ground there.

Tate: What’s the difference between wet and dry gas?

Burd: Wet gas has the heavier hydrocarbons: propane, ethane, butane, isobutane. And what we call dry gas would be that gas stream that is just mostly methane. So in addition to methane, those other heavier hydrocarbons are what we delineate as a wet gas. And we produce somewhere in the neighborhood of 700,000 barrels of ethane and liquids a day in that northwestern tier of the state. And those products are extracted through two or three large processing facilities we have up in that also in that same general area. Those liquids are sent south and north, south into Louisiana and north into Canada to be further processed. Or put in a pipeline and shipped to where those liquids are used.

Tate: What does the Mountain Valley Pipeline mean for gas producers in West Virginia?

Burd: That pipe is what they call fully subscribed. Meaning that the end users that have already subscribed or purchased will be purchasing that gas in long term, fixed contracts for that natural gas. But it means a lot to us because it’s literally, probably one of the last major pipelines that may be built. And for West Virginia, unlike Texas, and other places that can move a lot of gas across their state and be intrastate, our situation is much different. We have to ship our gas out of state where there are markets. West Virginia is small in comparison to other markets. So our gas is moved through interstate pipelines out of the state.

Tate: Why is MVP one of the last major pipelines to be built?

Burd: I think you just look at the extraordinarily difficult process someone has to encounter to design and construct a pipeline in this country now, it’s almost impossible. The Atlantic Coast Pipeline, which was a Dominion project, another 2 BCF a day that would have gone to eastern markets and military use. That project got scrapped a couple years ago. Because, the cost overruns, and just the increased scrutiny of us to have a line crossing 200 feet under the Appalachian Trail. Not impacting the trail at all, but just because it, quote-unquote, “crossed underneath.” that there was a lot of outcry.

Tate: Burning natural gas emits carbon dioxide and producing and transporting gas releases methane. Both are greenhouse gases. What is the industry doing to reduce those impacts?

Burd: Number one on our own, several years ago, the industry took upon itself to develop a program internally to reduce methane emissions. And here in the (Appalachian) basin, there’s lots of smaller conventional wells. And now in addition to the bigger Marcellus wells, we’ve reduced our carbon footprint here by something like 70 percent, over the last 10 years, just on initiatives, initiatives of our own, and then we get new legislation that says we have to do more. I mean, I think we’re still in the process of completing what we started on our own. Secondly, the methane that comes off of fugitive emissions that we would have when wells are put in, put into service, and methane doesn’t stay hovering over West Virginia, Pennsylvania and Washington, D.C. It goes way into the atmosphere. And there’s no question that if this administration is serious about reducing global emissions, no one produces natural gas more safely, or efficiently, or environmentally sound. And we do that we do right here in this country. No one has the exacting standards for environmental and safety as the United States does.

Tate: Ohio, Pennsylvania and Virginia have moved sharply away from coal and toward natural gas for electricity in the past 10 to 15 years. Why hasn’t West Virginia?

Burd: Well, it’s not because of lack of effort to develop natural gas fired electric generation. We have tried, and there have been numerous projects that have been placed upon the table. I think, Curtis, choosing my words with you carefully here, we have a state that has historically believed its reliance on energy and jobs came from the coal industry. But at the hands of the EPA and others, this constant demand to reduce emissions, and produce energy cleaner has transformed all those states you mentioned to producing electricity with natural gas. West Virginia’s a bit behind, but it’s not because we’re not trying. It’s just that we find ourselves in a better place. Literally, every day when it comes to being able to compete for those projects evenly with all the same playing field with Ohio, Pennsylvania. I mean, you’re right, Ohio and Pennsylvania collectively have maybe two dozen plants, two dozen natural gas fired electric generation plants. We literally have one down there in Huntington.

Unfinished Construction of Atlantic Coast Pipeline Remains on W.Va. Landowners Property Despite Construction Halt

This story was originally published by Mountain State Spotlight. Get stories like this delivered to your email inbox once a week; sign up for the free newsletter at https://mountainstatespotlight.org/newsletter

When Jeff Mills moved to Doddridge County with his wife nearly 50 years ago, he wanted enough land to hunt and fish. Now retired from decades with the West Virginia forestry division, Mills enjoys growing Christmas trees across from his front yard. A few cows live on a hill behind his house.

But in 2015, he got some unwelcome news. Mills learned that his 290-acre property was in the path of the Atlantic Coast Pipeline project, a natural gas pipeline planned to stretch hundreds of miles from West Virginia to North Carolina. An offshoot from the larger pipeline was supposed to run near the side of the Mills’ house.

Mills didn’t want the pipeline on his property. But ACP had the power — called eminent domain — to take it anyway. Federal regulators gave ACP that power as part of their approval of the project. So Mills, like many, said he agreed to negotiate.

“If they didn’t have eminent domain I would have told them to go fly a kite,” Mills said.

Ultimately, the company ended up getting a 50-foot-wide permanent easement in the middle of the property. Mills said the prospect of the pipeline buried near his home made him uneasy. But in July 2020, companies Dominion Energy and Duke Energy announced they were canceling the Atlantic Coast Pipeline.

Now, Mills and other landowners face a different question: What’s next for the land that used to be theirs?

In Doddridge County, the Mills’ property remains physically untouched, though contractors had already started clearing trees nearby when news of the pipeline’s cancellation broke. But there’s still an orange banner in one tree and a wooden stake in the ground, constant reminders that this swath of property doesn’t belong to him anymore.

And it’s the uncertainty of what could happen to that easement that Mills says he’s nervous about.

“A different company, a different pipeline … it’s not over,” Mills said.

Developers for the canceled Atlantic Coast Pipeline project that would’ve run through Doddridge County had already cleared trees for construction.

Canceling the pipeline

When Dominion Energy proposed the 600-mile ACP in 2015, the company said it was needed to diversify the region’s energy mix as more coal-fired plants retire. Construction began in 2017, after the project was approved by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

But after years of legal battles — mostly from environmental groups arguing FERC had overlooked impacts on climate change, and on local water systems and utilities — the companies pulled the plug on both the main pipeline and the smaller Supply Header pipeline, the offshoot that was going to run across the Mills property in Doddridge County.

“At that point, a lot of times people throw in the towel,” said Megan Gibson, an attorney who advocates for landowners with the Washington, D.C.- based Niskanen Center. “‘We’re done, we won, the pipeline’s dead.’ For landowners, that’s obviously not true.”

Among the three states, FERC documents say the proposed pipeline would’ve crossed more than 2,600 easements, covering nearly 4,300 acres of land — all of which Duke and Dominion now own the rights to.

Some landowners have miles of the pipeline already installed on their properties. Contractors for Duke and Dominion also cleared trees along more than 110 miles across West Virginia, Virginia and North Carolina, leaving about half of the felled trees on the property.

“Even if there’s nothing visible out on the land, there’s a public record out at the courthouse that restricts that landowner’s rights and that property’s value,” said Isak Howell, an attorney representing landowners. “The easements all prohibit building a structure. That means if you want to put a barn there, you cannot. If you want to put a house or shed there, you cannot. And the company has the right to come onto the property to do what they want.”

Right now, the future of these easements is an open question, as the energy companies seek approval from federal regulators on a plan to restore the land they already started preparing for the pipeline.

In Doddridge County, gravel covers land where developers were working on a canceled pipeline.

FERC noted in July that they had “received a number of comments that the commission should require the relinquishment of the easements” that Duke and Dominion own. But so far, regulators have opted out of weighing in. Attorneys like Gibson are requesting FERC get involved before their next more official statement on Dominion’s restoration proposals, which is due in November.

In an emailed statement, Dominion Energy spokesperson Christine Mitchell said the company will hang onto the easements for the next few years to “develop the most responsible approach” for restoration.

“We plan to keep the easements until all restoration and monitoring are complete,” she wrote. “However, we will evaluate individual landowner requests on a case-by-case basis.”

Restoration will take one to two years, with work in West Virginia beginning last in mid-2022.

To Howell, a natural “next question” would be what Duke and Dominion plan to do with the easements after restoration is finished.

“I think that the thing that hangs in the back of the mind of the landowner, and reasonably so, is not only what I said about it affecting the land value of it,” Howell said, “but there’s also the possibility that [Atlantic Coast Pipeline] sells these [easements] to another company, who then uses that as a foothold to build a pipeline on the same, or similar, route.”

“Could this be sold?” Howell said. “And could it still become some other pipeline, down the road?”

So what now?

After the pipeline was canceled, Gibson and the Niskanen Center intervened during Dominion’s request for restoration approval, on behalf of a handful of Virginia landowners living along the pipeline’s proposed route.

“Landowners are in this mess because FERC authorized this pipeline to go out and start taking people’s land,” Gibson said. “FERC created this mess, it needs to help fix this.”

Back in Doddridge County, Mills said he has written public comments to FERC asking the agency to return his easement to him.

There are a lot of unknowns. Because FERC hasn’t addressed the relinquishment of easements, there’s been no word on what happens to payments the companies have made. Mills received $210,000, he said, for his 50-foot easement.

Still, he remains afraid Duke and Dominion might end up selling the land to another pipeline company, bringing back the same fears.

“If it blew [up] right where it was put, anybody living here would be gone,” Mills said.

FERC is expected to file a new, final environmental impact statement by Nov. 19. It’s unclear whether they will rule on easements.

Reach reporter Emily Allen at emilyallen@mountainstatespotlight.org

LISTEN: Energy Expert Weighs In On What SCOTUS Ruling Means For The Atlantic Coast Pipeline

Last week, the U.S. Supreme Court handed down a victory to the 600-mile Atlantic Coast natural gas pipeline.

The issue at hand was whether the U.S. Forest Service could allow the pipeline to be built underneath the iconic Appalachian Trail, which is managed by another federal agency, the U.S. Park Service.

In a 7-2 decision, the court reversed a lower court’s decision and ruled that the USFS does have the authority to grant the pipeline permission to be built under the trail. The decision was hailed as a win by lead developer Dominion Energy and Gov. Jim Justice. Environmental groups note the project still needs eight more permits along its route.

It’s just one high profile court ruling in a string of lawsuits brought against this and other pipelines. So, just how significant is this win? And what does it mean for the future of the ACP — which is behind schedule and has ballooned in cost — as well as other pipelines here in Appalachia?

Energy and Environment Reporter Brittany Patterson spoke with Christi Tezak, managing director with ClearView Energy Partners, an independent research group based in Washington, D.C. Tezak is an energy analyst who follows pipeline litigation.

***Editor’s Note: The following has been edited for clarity and length.

Patterson: So what was the issue at the heart of the Supreme Court’s ruling?

Tezak: So the question before the Supreme Court was the Fourth Circuit’s decision in December 2018 that found that the Forest Service lacked the authority to give a natural gas pipeline permission to cross the Appalachian Trail at a location that happened to be within the George Washington National Forest.

Patterson: And what did the Supreme Court find?

Tezak: Basically, the Fourth Circuit read all of the laws together as indicating that the Appalachian Trail had become part of the Park Service, and as part of the Park Service, the Forest Service couldn’t provide permission to cross it. But the Supreme Court found that the way the statutes that structure the Park Service are set up, the land on which the Appalachian Trail is located within the Forest Service doesn’t really transfer its ownership, for lack of a better description, to the Park Service, and therefore the Forest Service retains the authority to authorize a pipeline to cross beneath it.

Patterson: So, does this mean that the Atlantic Coast Pipeline is just going to go right back into construction?

Tezak: Oh, no, because the halt in construction actually has nothing to do with the Appalachian Trail. The important thing about the Appalachian Trail crossing being upheld by the Supreme Court is that it obviates the need for an amendment to the route and that would have created a whole other set of changes and comments and approvals and all sorts of things. So, it takes away the risk that Atlantic Coast would have to relocate the route.

Christine Tezak of ClearView Energy Partners.

What it does not do, however, is solve the real reason why the pipeline’s not under construction. The reason the pipeline is not under construction today is because the Fourth Circuit has vacated not once but twice, the Endangered Species Act review associated with the pipeline.

Patterson: There have been a lot of lawsuits, including this one, that have slowed down pipeline construction, especially of the Mountain Valley Pipeline and Atlantic Coast Pipeline. Is this changing the calculus for companies looking to build future pipelines?

Tezak: Before Atlantic Coast and Mountain Valley, the suspension and vacatur of a permit was actually quite rare. And the change over the last couple of years we ascribe to the increased sophistication and substance of the challenges brought by pipeline opponents. What has changed, and what changed in particular with Atlantic Coast and Mountain Valley, is how the environmentalists went after the permits. So the ability to actually stop a pipeline and construction wasn’t something that was easily achieved — I’d argue it still is a tough thing to manage — but it proved successful with some very solid lawyering on the part of the opposition to really get into the substance of permits issued by federal agencies.

Patterson: What are the long-term implications of this case?

Tezak: I think that the Appalachian Trail ruling of the Supreme Court is an important one. But I think it’s only one part of broader trends that surround the challenges facing the construction of new infrastructure, particularly infrastructure that carries conventional fuels like oil and gas. And I think that investors do recognize that the opposition is becoming increasingly more sophisticated.The operator leaders that are good at preparing their documentation in federal review, that don’t rush the federal regulator to a decision, that execute their obligations under the law the way they need to, are the projects that are most likely to get built. And the ones where, you know, if corners were cut or if I’s weren’t dotted and T’s weren’t crossed — for example in the case of the Forest Service permits for ACP and MVP where things that should have been addressed were left out — then you can have some pretty significant vulnerabilities. And so I think that there is pressure from the investment community on pipeline sponsors to do good work on the first pass so that their permits do hold up in court, because the challenges to them are improving over time.

Justices Revive Permit For Pipeline Under Appalachian Trail

The Supreme Court sided with energy companies and the Trump administration Monday in reinstating a critical permit for a proposed natural gas pipeline that would cross under the Appalachian Trail.

The justices ruled 7-2 to throw out a lower court ruling that had canceled the permit for the Atlantic Coast Pipeline. It would bring natural gas from West Virginia to growing markets in Virginia and North Carolina. Its supporters say the pipeline would bring economic development, thousands of jobs and reduced energy costs for consumers.

Justice Clarence Thomas wrote for a majority of the court that the “Forest Service had the authority to issue the permit here.” Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan dissented.

Other legal issues remain before construction of the pipeline could begin. The narrow question before the Supreme Court was whether the U.S. Forest Service has the authority to grant rights-of-way through lands crossed by the Appalachian Trail within national forests, as project developers Dominion Energy and Duke Energy and the Trump administration argued.

The pipeline would run in part through the George Washington National Forest, where a 0.1-mile segment of the pipeline would cross about 600 feet (about 183 meters) beneath the Appalachian Trail.

The Sierra Club and other environmental groups had argued that because the 2,200-mile (3,540-kilometer) scenic trail from Georgia to Maine is considered a unit of the National Park System, no federal agency can grant a right-of-way for the pipeline. They say only Congress can approve such a crossing.

The Richmond, Virginia-based 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with the environmentalists in 2018 and threw out a special-use permit for the 605-mile (974-kilometer) natural gas pipeline. The appeals court relied on a century-old law, the 1920 Mineral Leasing Act, in finding that the Forest Service does not have authority to grant rights-of-way for pipelines on federal land in the National Park System.

The project has had numerous setbacks since plans were first announced in 2014. Legal challenges brought by environmental groups have prompted the dismissal or suspension of eight permits and halted construction for more than a year.

The project is more than three years behind schedule and its original price tag has nearly doubled to $8 billion.

Dominion says the pipeline will bring a critical new gas supply to Virginia and North Carolina to support the shift away from coal and toward intermittent natural resources like solar. The company also says greater availability of natural gas will attract manufacturing businesses.

Environmental groups say the pipeline would scar pristine landscapes, put numerous rivers and streams at risk of increased sedimentation and harm sensitive species.

Atlantic Coast Pipeline Appalachian Trail Case Heads to Supreme Court

A battle over the Atlantic Coast Pipeline is headed to the U.S. Supreme Court Monday, Feb. 24. Oral arguments are scheduled in the case U.S. Forest Service v. Cowpasture River Preservation Association for Monday, Feb. 24.

At the heart of the case is whether the U.S. Forest Service has the authority to grant the Atlantic Coast Pipeline a permit to cross under the Appalachian Trail, federal land, that is a unit of the National Park Service.

The ruling could have big impacts for the route of the 600-mile natural gas project, which begins in West Virginia and crosses through Virginia and North Carolina.

In December 2018, the Fourth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the U.S. Forest Service improperly granted the pipeline a permit to cross under the Appalachian Trail, a popular 2,200-mile hiking route that goes from Georgia to Maine.

Ahead of the case being argued in the high court, both the pipeline’s supporters and opponents say they are cautiously optimistic.

Federal Barrier?

“We think that the Fourth Circuit clearly erred,” said Republican West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey, speaking at a recent press conference at the capitol in Charleston. Morrisey led a group of 18 state attorneys general who filed an amicus brief urging the Supreme Court to overturn the lower court’s ruling.

“You cannot set up literally an impenetrable federal barrier to economic development, not only under our constitution or a law, but under the statutes, the Mineral Leasing Act,” he said.

Pipeline spokesperson Ann Nallo said more than 50 other pipelines cross under the Appalachian Trail. In court briefs, pipeline developer Dominion Energy argues if the lower court’s ruling is upheld, that would upend decades of precedent and permits.

“So, where the Atlantic Coast Pipeline is currently routed, is underneath one-tenth of a mile stretch about 600 feet below the surface of the Appalachian Trail,” she said. “If it’s now going to be understood that it’s National Park Service land, where a pipeline can’t cross without congressional approval, that essentially turns it into a 2,200-mile barrier.”

Other Obstacles

But environmental groups say this case is different. Greg Buppert is an attorney with the Southern Environmental Law Center, one of the groups that will defend the lower court’s decision.

“Yes, to be sure other pipelines cross the Appalachian Trail. What’s different here is that the crossing is proposed on federal land,” he said. “There’s never been a new right of way for a pipeline on federal land in the last 50 years.”

Buppert said even if the Supreme Court sides with the Atlantic Coast Pipeline in this case, the project’s future remains murky.

“If you step back away from the just the Cow Pasture case and the Appalachian Trail crossing issue — which I think is just a symptom of the route Dominion chose — I think this project has serious problems and obstacles ahead of it,” he said.

Several of the project’s federal permits are in flux and other lawsuits are ongoing. Project developer Dominion Energy says the project has ballooned in cost to $8 billion. The Supreme Court is expected to hand down its ruling in May or June of this year.

W.Va. AG Morrisey Files Amicus Brief Urging Supreme Court To Overturn ACP Ruling

A group of 18 states, led by West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey, is urging the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn a lower court ruling that blocked construction of the Atlantic Coast Pipeline under the Appalachian Trail.

In an amicus brief filed Monday, Morrisey argued if a December 2018 decision by the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals is upheld, the 1,000 miles of federal land along the Appalachian Trail would become off limits to this and other natural gas pipelines and into “a near-impenetrable barrier to energy development.”

Last December, the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled the U.S. Forest Service should not have granted the 600-mile natural gas pipeline a permit to cross under national forest lands, including the Appalachian Trail.

Judge Stephanie Thacker cited Dr. Suess’ “The Lorax” in the opinion and said the agency failed to examine environmental impacts of the project when it issued the approval.

“We trust the United States Forest Service to ‘speak for the trees, for the trees have no tongues,'” Thacker wrote. “A thorough review of the record leads to the necessary conclusion that the Forest Service abdicated its responsibility to preserve national forest resources.”

The court threw out the pipeline’s right of way for the Appalachian Trail and found that the Forest Service does not have the authority to grant the Atlantic Coast Pipeline approval to cross under it.

The ruling could have big impacts for the Atlantic Coast Pipeline’s route. Pipeline developer Dominion Energy appealed the ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court.

In the friend of the court brief, Morrisey and 17 other state attorneys general said, if upheld, the lower court’s ruling could turn all federal trails into barriers to energy development.

Environmental groups who brought the case, including Cowpasture River Preservation Association, Sierra Club and others, argue in a brief filed with the Supreme Court that the 4th Circuit’s ruling should stand.

In addition to the Atlantic Coast Pipeline’s Appalachian Trail right-of-way, other permits and issues remain unresolved before the project can resume construction.

Oral arguments in the case are set for Feb. 24, 2020.