Summer Savings! Get unlimited digital access for 13 weeks for $13.
Readers Respond
News Opinion Readers Respond

Proposed Cove Point plant is an outdated concept for a facility Maryland doesn't need [Letter]

The proposed liquid natural gas export terminal at Cove Point is a 2004 idea, the year it was first proposed. It requires overturning the national fuels export ban, ignoring new information about the potency of methane emissions and would represent a $3.8 billion investment in what some are calling a "carbon asset bubble" ("Hundreds rally to oppose Cove Point project," Feb. 20).

U.S. oil and gas companies spent $185.6 billion in 2012 on exploration and development of new fossil fuel production domestically. Now gas investors like Exxon and Dominion want us to let them sell the resulting glut in natural gas overseas. They envision a global gas market, with a global price and a better return on their over-investment — all of which are bound to increase domestic natural gas prices.

Thirty percent of the natural gas coming out of the ground goes up in smoke at North Dakota's oil wellheads. Evidently, it's not even worth the cost of capturing. This flared gas totaled $1 billion in discarded fuel and has created greenhouse gas emissions equal to 1 million cars.

Natural gas is the primary source of methane emissions. New calculations show methane's effect on the atmosphere is 70 to 100 times worse than carbon monoxide, and sea levels are rising faster along the Virginia and Mid-Atlantic coasts faster than anywhere else. We have no choice except to deal aggressively with methane emissions.

Since Cove Point was first envisioned, solar and wind prices have dropped substantially. Solar panels, for example, are down 80 percent since 2008. Yet Dominion has still to make a major investment in clean power. Our coastal communities should not have to pay for Dominion's outdated investment strategy.

Jane Twitmyer

To respond to this letter, send an email to Please include your name and contact information.

Copyright © 2015, The Baltimore Sun
Related Content
  • Western Md. faces fracking threat

    Western Md. faces fracking threat

    The recent article about fracking in Western Maryland seemed to me to raise more arguments for not drilling for natural gas in Garrett County than for it ("Fracking debate intensifies in Western Maryland, those benefits would be relatively short-term since "Western Maryland's gas reserves are limited."

  • Fracking's false promise

    Fracking's false promise

    Letter writer Matthew Dempsey wants us all to jump on the fracking bandwagon, quoting governors of both parties, including former Gov. Martin O'Malley, that "regulations will effectively manage the risks of fracking" ("Fracking causes no harm," April 2).

  • Risks of fracking are unacceptable

    Risks of fracking are unacceptable

    I am a resident and property owner in Garrett County and want my voice heard by state officials: I do not want fracking in Maryland.

  • Fracking an assault on the planet

    Fracking an assault on the planet

    The Baltimore Sun recently carried a letter from a reader advocating fracking in Maryland, apparently placing the priority on overpopulating the planet and "to hell with the environment" ("Md. shouldn't make the same mistake as New York in banning fracking," March 31). Already, fracking has been...

  • Fracking causes no harm

    Fracking causes no harm

    With the House of Delegates recently voting to institute a three-year moratorium on hydraulic fracturing, it's clear that politics could trump science in Maryland ("Md. shouldn't make the same mistake as New York in banning fracking," March 31).

  • Md. shouldn't make the same mistake as New York in banning fracking

    Md. shouldn't make the same mistake as New York in banning fracking

    I live in Deposit in New York's Southern Tier and know first-hand how New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo's decision to ban fracking has taken away our chance to transform our economically depressed communities into thriving ones ("New York bans fracking, citing health risks," Dec. 18).

  • Fracking's risks are 'considerable'

    Fracking's risks are 'considerable'

    I applaud your March 23 editorial endorsing a moratorium on fracking in Western Maryland ("Fracking deserves a pause," March 25). My considerable research reveals fracking in Maryland imposes severe and permanent environmental risks with questionable to negative long-term economic impacts to produce...

  • Fracking moratorium is the right step

    Fracking moratorium is the right step

    Your editorial ("Fracking deserves a pause," March 25) got it right on all counts. Fracking simply does not mesh well with our tourist industry in Western Maryland.