Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Sierra Club says it will reject planned Maryland terminal to export liquefied natural gas
Associated Press ^ | April 26, 2012 | Matthew Daly, Associated Press

Posted on 04/26/2012 9:16:07 AM PDT by Praxeologue

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Sierra Club says it will block an energy company's plan to export liquefied natural gas from the booming Marcellus Shale formation.

Virginia-based Dominion Resources Inc. is seeking to export 1 billion cubic feet per day through a terminal it owns in Maryland. A previous legal settlement gives the Sierra Club the ability to reject any significant changes to the purpose or footprint of the existing natural gas terminal in Cove Point, Md.

(Excerpt) Read more at finance.yahoo.com ...


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: clubsierra; ecothugs; naturalgas; shalegas; sierraclub; watermellons
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-40 next last

1 posted on 04/26/2012 9:16:14 AM PDT by Praxeologue
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Kennard

The left will oppose anything that is good for the country.


2 posted on 04/26/2012 9:18:08 AM PDT by Praxeologue
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kennard

What a shocker.


3 posted on 04/26/2012 9:23:00 AM PDT by umgud (No Rats, No Rino's)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kennard
A previous legal settlement gives the Sierra Club the ability to reject any significant changes...

I'm not going to read the article but why would they give a hoot what the Sierra Club had to say in the first palce?

4 posted on 04/26/2012 9:23:45 AM PDT by NativeSon ( Grease the floor with Crisco when I dance the Disco)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kennard

I fully support Dominion’s right to export the LNG if it so desires ... but burning it right here in America would be perfectly fine with me.


5 posted on 04/26/2012 9:24:43 AM PDT by ArrogantBustard (Western Civilization is Aborting, Buggering, and Contracepting itself out of existence.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kennard
They opposed importing LNG at Cove Point, too, iirc.
6 posted on 04/26/2012 9:25:29 AM PDT by Smokin' Joe (How often God must weep at humans' folly. Stand fast. God knows what He is doing)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kennard

Yes, there is only one safe place to put a LNG terminal, . . TEXAS!


7 posted on 04/26/2012 9:27:05 AM PDT by 2001convSVT (Going Galt as fast as I can.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kennard
Did I miss something?

Who elected the Sierra Club to what?

8 posted on 04/26/2012 9:28:07 AM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum (Government is the religion of the sociopath.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kennard

Why in the world does the Sierra Club have any influence over what the State of Virginia wants to do with a terminal in Maryland? Methinks the SC is overstepping their sphere of influence (besides being wrong about just about everything.)


9 posted on 04/26/2012 9:28:39 AM PDT by afraidfortherepublic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kennard

Wonder what the previous settlement was all about..........


10 posted on 04/26/2012 9:34:08 AM PDT by Osage Orange (The MSM is the most dangerous entity in the United States of America.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: afraidfortherepublic

Settlements seem to be a great way for liberals to circumvent the political and legal process. DOn’t know what happened in this case, but it works like this:

A school board wants to do something, like force taxes to be raised, but has no authority to do so. So instead, they impose some obviously onerous rule based on not having money.

Then some “affected party” “sues” the school board, insisting that they spend the money. The suit goes to court, and the school board enters into a settlement where the taxes are raised. If they can get the judge to sign the settlement, now they have a “legal” decree to do what they couldn’t do politically.


11 posted on 04/26/2012 9:37:30 AM PDT by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Kennard
"A previous legal settlement gives the Sierra Club the ability to reject any significant changes to the purpose or footprint of the existing natural gas terminal in Cove Point, Md."

Winning The Future?

12 posted on 04/26/2012 9:50:59 AM PDT by Paladin2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kennard

The Sierra Club was a tool of the Soviets back in the ‘80s.

The Sierra Club is a tool of Putin and the Russians today.

US gas exports have the potential to cut into GAZPROM’s lucrative European gas contracts, costing the Russians trillions of dollars and breaking European dependence on Russian energy sources. The Russians are highly motivated to make sure that no gas gets shipped out of the East Coast of the United States.

And along comes the Sierra Club to make sure that does not happen. How convenient.


13 posted on 04/26/2012 9:53:20 AM PDT by Haiku Guy ("The problem with Internet Quotes is that you never know if they are real" -- Abraham Lincoln)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2001convSVT

14 posted on 04/26/2012 9:55:31 AM PDT by Paladin2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Osage Orange
Wonder what the previous settlement was all about..........

Sure would help give some context. Sounds like one of those effectively collusive settlements ginned up by environmentalists and their friends in government, but it's impossible to tell from the article. Giving the Sierra Club veto power over anything is positively nuts.
15 posted on 04/26/2012 10:01:35 AM PDT by rockvillem
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: NativeSon

The Sierra Club? I am unfamiliar with this branch of government.


16 posted on 04/26/2012 10:06:08 AM PDT by massgopguy (I owe everything to George Bailey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: 2001convSVT
"Yes, there is only one safe place to put a LNG terminal, . . TEXAS!"

As Darth Vader found out...."there is another".....Louisiana (aka LOOP....Louisiana Offshore Oil Port).

17 posted on 04/26/2012 10:18:00 AM PDT by Wonder Warthog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: rockvillem
Wonder what the previous settlement was all about ...

Sierra says that it is a 1970s agreement with a previous owner, Columbia Gas:

http://sierraclub.typepad.com/compass/2012/04/defeats-lng.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+compass-main+%28Compass+-+Main%29

18 posted on 04/26/2012 10:23:13 AM PDT by Praxeologue
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Kennard

If I wanted America to fail...


19 posted on 04/26/2012 10:29:32 AM PDT by Chuckster (The longer I live the less I care about what you think.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kennard

how in the hell does a political action committee get legal jurisdiction over anything?????


20 posted on 04/26/2012 10:29:35 AM PDT by joe fonebone (If you vote for the lesser of two evils, you are still voting for evil.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-40 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson