Stop the UN-Constitutional Pipeline | Learn What You Can Do
Contact  Us


Williams stated in their May 2012 presentation to its investors it is looking to overseas markets for LNG or liquefied natural gas. And while Williams has back-peddled some of these remarks in recent public meetings around the Southern Tier of New York, where they hope to install the Constitution Pipeline, recent news from Europe reveals that Williams was right to promise exports to their investors. (See the Williams' presentation here.)

"UK shale gas can ease rising dependency on imports, says IoD"

Britain must begin shale gas exploration to ease its growing dependency on imported gas, the Institute of Directors (IoD) said on Friday.
--By Henning Gloystein | Reuters
LONDON, Sept 21 (Reuters) -

The article goes on to state…”Without the development of new domestic gas resources, Britain's import costs for natural gas could rise from $8.5 billion today to more than $11 billion by 2015 as North Sea supplies dwindle and Norway struggles to fill the gap."

With Bulgaria and France having banned shale gas exploration, and other E.U. countries soon to follow, it only makes sense for Williams to export gas from their pipelines to these lucrative markets. Make no mistake, exports of natural gas are headed oversees. It is what is motivating the Brits to try their own hand at fracking. “In the United States, a shale gas boom has resulted in a sharp rise in natural gas production, leading to a collapse in domestic prices and the possibility of the U.S. exporting liquefied natural gas (LNG) by 2015.”
Let’s see, Williams wants to rush the Constitution Pipeline to completion by… what was that date again? Oh, yeah, TARGET IN SERVICE DATE 2015! See the Williams slide about export LNG here.

Do not let this happen. Do not let Williams play with your lives, health, economic safety and that of your children. Stop The Pipeline.

Supplying natural gas to LNG export terminals by definition does not meet the ‘public use’ test

...a holder of a certificate of public convenience and necessity may not exercise the right of eminent domain with respect to a pipeline to be constructed for the purpose of transporting natural gas to an LNG terminal for export to a foreign country from the United States.’


( See more on the threat of eminent domain being used to intimidate landowners.)