Letter: More gas pipelines mean more risk for dangers

I am writing in response to William Thomas' optimistic view of new pipelines ("Consider benefits of the gas pipeline," Dec. 22).As a homeowner directly impacted by the proposed Kinder Morgan Northeast Energy Direct project, I don't share such a rosy perception, nor do the towns and villages along the proposed route that have passed numerous resolutions against the NED. This gas will be headed to Massachusetts and is not available to folks in New York. There is talk of sending the gas to Maine and Canada for liquefication and eventual export. Financing for the line is sketchy with the price of gas down and the actual customers not committing to large volumes. Another pipeline in the works, the 178-mile long Pilgrim, would move crude oil from Albany to refineries in New Jersey and, theoretically, back again. Congressional efforts to allow petroleum export would mean the Pilgrim oil would probably bypass our refineries and leave the country completely, not much benefit to us there either.The Constitution Pipeline would run 124 miles from the fracking fields of Pennsylvania to Schoharie. Although this natural gas would burn cleaner than oil, it is primarily methane, a potent greenhouse gas.More pipelines mean more leaks, more off-gassing at the compressor stations and more reliance on non-renewable energy. Industrial pipelines negatively alter the landscape, decrease property values, take private land for corporate profit and make meaningful action on climate change impossible. That's not even considering safety issues involved in construction and maintenance of such high pressure infrastructures. Pipelines may be safer than trucks, trains or ships. But they increase dirty energy and that is the most dangerous route of all.Meg FordNassau href='http://www.timesunion.com/tuplus-opinion/article/Letter-More-gas-pipelines-mean-more-risk-for-6733154.php' - http://www.timesunion.com/tuplus-opinion/article/Letter-More-gas-pipelines-mean-more-risk-for-6733154.php -