Tag: pipelines

Energy Dominance 2.0: LNG Edition, Part Deux

The vast majority (85%) of the pipeline capacity built in 2025 will take Haynesville natural gas to Gulf Coast LNG export terminals.

From Watts Up With That?

Guest “If you build it, they will come” by David Middleton

Data source: U.S. Energy Information Administration, U.S. Natural Gas Pipeline Projects tracker
Note: Regions are based on EIA natural gas storage regions, with the East region broken out into Northeast and Southeast regions.

Natural gas pipeline projects completed in the United States in 2025 increased capacity by approximately 6.3 billion cubic feet per day (Bcf/d), according to our recently updated Natural Gas Pipeline Projects Tracker. A substantial portion, 85%, or 5.3 Bcf/d, of this new capacity is dedicated to delivering natural gas to the South Central region of the United States. This region includes the Gulf Coast, where much of the nation’s growing natural gas demand, particularly from liquefied natural gas (LNG), is concentrated. The new capacity primarily connects both new and existing supply sources to consumers in the region.

Approximately 65% of the total pipeline capacity built in 2025 consists of intrastate pipelines, continuing the recent trend of intrastate pipeline builds outpacing interstate capacity additions. These pipelines operate primarily within state lines and are therefore not subject to the jurisdiction of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC).

The new intrastate capacity built in 2025 largely functions as gathering systems, which are essential for transporting natural gas from producers into the wider transmission system. Two such projects completed in 2025 expanded pipeline capacity by a combined 3.5 Bcf/d to connect natural gas production from the natural gas-producing Haynesville formation to the Gillis Hub in southeastern Louisiana. The Louisiana Energy Gateway project added 1.8 Bcf/d, and the New Generation Gas Gathering system added 1.7 Bcf/d. Both were in service as of October 2025.

In addition, three major projects expanded natural gas pipeline capacity for delivery to growing demand centers on the Gulf Coast by a combined 1.8 Bcf/d. The Evangeline Pass Expansion project added 1.1 Bcf/d, and the East Lateral Xpress Project added 0.3 Bcf/d. These two projects deliver feedgas directly to Plaquemines LNG, which shipped its first cargo in 2025. The Texas to Louisiana Pathway Project added 0.4 Bcf/d in interstate capacity from Texas through to eastern Louisiana.

Data source: U.S. Energy Information Administration
Note: LNG=liquefied natural gas

Principal contributors: Katie Dyl, Trinity Manning-Pickett, Laia Munoz-Cortijo

Tags: natural gas, pipelines, map, LNG (liquefied natural gas), Haynesville

EIA

The Haynesville is expected to account for 2/3 of the increase in natural gas production over the next two years.

Haynesville forecast to lead U.S. shale growth in next two years

(The Center Square) – Domestic natural gas production is expected to increase by an average of 4.0 billion cubic feet per day, or 3.4%, in the next two years to 122.3 billion cubic feet per day, with more than two-thirds of the additional output produced in the Haynesville shale region of northwest Louisiana and northeast Texas.

Through the end of 2027, higher gas production will be driven primarily by rising demand for fuels to power data centers across the U.S. and by liquefied natural gas exports shipped from terminals in Louisiana and Texas, according to the U.S. Department of Energy’s updated February forecast. 

[…]

The Center Square

EIA

The Haynesville has often been overshadowed by the Permian Basin and Appalachian (Marcellus & Utica) plays.

The following is from this April 2022 post: Haynesville Shale: Record Natural Gas Production

Undiscovered Resource Potential

The most recent USGS assessment puts the undiscovered resource potential of the Haynesville shale (highlighted) at nearly 300 Tcf (~10 years of total US natural gas consumption).

Assessment of Undiscovered Oil and Gas Resources in the
Haynesville Formation, U.S. Gulf Coast, 2016. (USGS)

The Haynesville shale plays are the hachured and dotted areas on the map below…

Assessment of Undiscovered Oil and Gas Resources in the
Haynesville Formation, U.S. Gulf Coast, 2016. (USGS)

The Many Benefits of Catastrophic Sea Level Rise

The Haynesville Shale, which has also been referred to as the “lower Bossier,” is the basinal equivalent of the Cotton Valley Lime and pinnacle reef trend in East Texas that was deposited during the transgressive phase of SS2. These pinnacle reefs formed in response to the rising sea level as they were back-stepping onto Haynesville ramp carbonates; the carbonates were able to keep up with rising sea level until they were “drowned” by the fine-grained-sediment-dominated transgression. The top of the Haynesville Shale marks the maximum flooding surface as evidenced by maximum marine onlap on the shelf (e.g., Goldhammer, 1998). The Bossier shales (so-called “upper Bossier”) are characteristic of the highstand systems tract of SS2 reflecting a turn-around in sea level and increase in siliciclastic influence.Hammes et al., 2009

A marine transgression (catastrophic sea level rise), approximately 150 million years ago, led to the deposition of the Haynesville Shale, as well as the trapping mechanism for the Haynesville Shale and the stratigraphically equivalent Cotton Valley Lime pinnacle reef plays.

Haynesville stratigraphic column. Ramirez et al., 2011, Galloway, 2008
Isopach (thickness) map of the Haynesville/Bossier Shale. Ramirez et al., 2011

The hydrocarbons in the Haynesville Shale and Cotton Valley Lime were sourced from the Smackover and Haynesville Formations.

Mudstones within the Upper Jurassic Smackover and Haynesville Formations are sources of oil and gas in both conventional (Montgomery, 1993a, 1993b; Mancini and others, 2006) and continuous reservoirs (Hammes and others, 2011; Cicero and Steinhoff, 2013) throughout much of the assessment area.Assessment of Undiscovered Oil and Gas Resources in the Haynesville Formation, U.S. Gulf Coast, 2016. (USGS)

The Smackover Formation is probably the most prolific source rock in the Gulf Coast/Gulf of Mexico America region. Depending on depositional environment, the Smackover is also a prolific oil & gas producer and the seal for the Norphlet Formation where it is productive. The Haynesville would be between the Bossier and Smackover Formations on the diagram below.

Left to right: Generalized cross section along northern GOM GOA region (Galloway et al., 2009), depositional phases are numbered. Relative sea level (Miller et al., 2005), atmospheric CO2 (Berner & Kothavala, 2001) and temperature anomalies (Royer et al., 2004). Click for image. The Haynesville is between the Bossier and the Smackover to the east of the Cotton Valley.

The next four displays are from Cicero & Steinhoff, 2013, depicting the sequence stratigraphy and depositional environments of the Haynesville and Bossier shales.

Map of wells, seismic surveys and cross-sections used in study.
Cross-section B-B’. West is toward the left. The curve on the right represents sea level, rising sea level is toward the left.

This is interpreted seismic profile A-A’, running from north (left) to south (right), just west of the Texas-Louisiana state line.

Figure 3b. Integrated seismic and sequence stratigraphy of dip-oriented seismic line A-A’. Supersequence boundaries indicated in red (SSB), higher-order (3rd+) sequence boundaries with dashed black lines (SB), maximum flooding surfaces (mfs) in green, and transgressive surfaces (TS) pertaining to supersequences in blue. Onlap and downlap indicated with the use of arrows. Dashed vertical lines indicate approximate basement faulting. Modified from Cicero et al. (2010).

The following is a depositional environment (paleogeography) map of the Bossier Shale (~150 million years ago):

“You see the story yet?”

You see the story yet? It’s all pretty much here.
In a language you can’t yet understand, but it’s here.
A tale of upheaval and battles won and lost.
Gothic tales of sweeping change, peaceful times, and then great trauma again.
And it all connects to our little friend.
That’s what we are, we geologists.
Storytellers.
Interpreters, actually.
That’s what you gentlemen are going to become.
And how does this relate to the moon? From 240,000 miles away you have to give the most complete possible description of what you’re seeing.
Not just which rocks you plan to bring back but their context.
That and knowing which ones to pick up in the first place is what might separate you guys from those little robots.
You know, the ones some jaded souls think should have your job.
You see, you have to become our eyes and ears out there.
And for you to do that, you first have to learn the language of this little rock here.
–David Clennon as Dr. Leon (Lee) Silver, From the Earth to the Moon, Episode 10, Galileo Was Right, 1998

HBO’s 1998 From the Earth to the Moon miniseries was a sort of follow-on to the great movie Apollo 13… It’s a must see for space program fanatics. I particularly like this episode because my childhood interest in the space program led me toward the sciences and ultimately geology. Future Apollo 17 astronaut Harrison “Jack” Schmitt recruited his former field geology professor to train the Apollo 15 lunar module team and their backup crew how to become field geologists.  It reminds me of why I love geology so much.  I’ve also had the great honor of meeting Dr. Schmitt at the 2011 American Association of Petroleum Geologists convention in Houston.  Shaking hands with someone who not only walked on the Moon, but also got to throw a rock hammer farther than any geologist ever has before or since, was pretty fracking cool… And so is geology!

References

Berner, R.A. and Z. Kothavala, 2001. GEOCARB III: A Revised Model of Atmospheric CO2 over Phanerozoic Time, American Journal of Science, v.301, pp.182-204, February 2001.

Cicero, Andrea D. and Ingo Steinhoff, 2013, Sequence stratigraphy and depositional environments of the Haynesville and Bossier Shales, East Texas and North Louisiana, in U. Hammes and J. Gale, eds., Geology of the Haynesville Gas Shale in East Texas and West Louisiana, U.S.A.: AAPG Memoir 105, p. 25–46.

Galloway, William. (2008). “Chapter 15 Depositional Evolution of the Gulf of Mexico Sedimentary Basin”. Volume 5: Ed. Andrew D. Miall, The Sedimentary Basins of the United States and Canada., ISBN: 978-0-444-50425-8, Elsevier B.V., pp. 505-549.

Galloway, William E., et al. “Gulf of Mexico.” GEO ExPro, 2009, http://www.geoexpro.com/articles/2009/03/gulf-of-mexico.

Hammes, Ursula and Ray Eastwood, Harry Rowe, Robert Reed. (2009). Addressing Conventional Parameters in Unconventional Shale-Gas Systems: Depositional Environment, Petrography, Geochemistry, and Petrophysics of the Haynesville Shale. 10.5724/gcs.09.29.0181.

Miller, Kenneth & Kominz, Michelle & V Browning, James & Wright, James & Mountain, Gregory & E Katz, Miriam & J Sugarman, Peter & Cramer, Benjamin & Christie-Blick, Nicholas & Pekar, S. (2005). “The Phanerozoic Record of Global Sea-Level Change”. Science (New York, N.Y.). 310. 1293-8. 10.1126/science.1116412.

Ramirez, Thaimar, James Klein, Ron Bonnie, James Howard. (2011). Comparative Study of Formation Evaluation Methods for Unconventional Shale Gas Reservoirs: Application to the Haynesville Shale (Texas). Society of Petroleum Engineers – SPE Americas Unconventional Gas Conference 2011, UGC 2011. 10.2118/144062-MS.

Governor Healey’s Energy Crisis: Outrage Theater for the Freeze-and-Pay Crowd

Governor Maura Healey is outraged. Outraged, I tell you! And when a politician is outraged, you know it’s serious — because it usually means they’ve just been caught red-handed creating a problem that’s now torching the people who elected them. This time, the crisis is Massachusetts families staring down a nearly 20 percent hike in their winter heating bills. According to Mass Daily News, Healey stormed to the cameras to thunder, “These rate hikes are outrageous. I am urging the DPU to scrutinize this proposal and push back on Eversource”.

Person bundled in winter clothing with snow on their face, staring at the camera. Text overlay: 'GLOBAL WARMING'.

From Watts Up With That?

By Charles Rotter

Governor Healey speaking about the energy crisis, with a focus on rising gas prices and the impact on families. The image includes a graphic showing a significant energy bill and references to wind energy.
Gov Healey OUTRAGED as families face nearly 20% winter gas hike — after proudly killing two pipelines – Mass Daily News

Governor Maura Healey is outraged. Outraged, I tell you! And when a politician is outraged, you know it’s serious — because it usually means they’ve just been caught red-handed creating a problem that’s now torching the people who elected them. This time, the crisis is Massachusetts families staring down a nearly 20 percent hike in their winter heating bills. According to Mass Daily News, Healey stormed to the cameras to thunder, “These rate hikes are outrageous. I am urging the DPU to scrutinize this proposal and push back on Eversource”.

Yes, the governor who strangled natural gas pipelines in their crib is now shocked — shocked! — to find there isn’t enough gas to keep the state warm without paying European-import prices. This is like smashing your car with a baseball bat, then screaming at the mechanic when it won’t start.

Let’s review the tape. Healey, back when she was Attorney General, gleefully bragged about killing not one, but two pipelines that would have brought desperately needed natural gas into the Bay State. She weaponized a glossy 2015 “climate report” that insisted Massachusetts didn’t need new pipelines — because, of course, renewable pixie dust was just around the corner. She crowed in a radio interview that she “stood up for ratepayers” by ensuring pipeline companies couldn’t push costs onto consumers. The companies walked, the pipelines died, and Healey took a victory lap.

Fast forward to 2025. The gas bills are set to explode by as much as 17 percent this winter. The families she claimed to “stand up for” are now wondering how exactly freezing in their living rooms qualifies as standing up for them. And Healey? She’s on TV, wagging her finger at the utility companies, pretending to be the victim of some corporate conspiracy.

The problem for Healey is that voters aren’t as dumb as she hopes. They remember who killed those pipelines. They remember who promised sunshine and sea breezes would magically meet demand. They remember the speeches, the boasts, the green sanctimony. The whole thing is a classic case of the arsonist showing up at the fire scene, screaming at the flames she lit herself.

Of course, this isn’t just a Massachusetts problem. It’s the climate cult’s entire business model. These are the same geniuses who spent decades chanting “no more pipelines,” then acted shocked when energy prices went up. They assured us offshore wind farms would replace fossil fuels, then demanded billions in subsidies when the turbines couldn’t turn a profit. They shut down coal plants, then panicked when the grid buckled during a cold snap. Every time, it’s the same script: sabotage supply, spike costs, feign outrage, and blame somebody else.

Remember California’s rolling blackouts? Same religion, different pew. Remember Germany’s “Energiewende,” the great green transition that left the country hooked on Russian gas and burning more coal than ever? Same genius plan, same failure. Massachusetts is just the latest episode of the global warming soap opera, where the heroes always make life harder for the people they claim to save.

And Healey’s performance is priceless. “Outrageous!” she cries, as if the laws of supply and demand are some sinister plot hatched by Eversource executives in a smoky boardroom. Newsflash: when you block supply and increase demand, prices go up. This isn’t dark sorcery. It’s Economics 101. But apparently the syllabus at progressive finishing school skipped that chapter.

It gets better. Back in 2015, the official line from Healey’s office was that Massachusetts could coast until 2030 without new pipelines, relying on “efficiency programs” and “climate goals”. Translation: turn down your thermostat, buy a sweater, and pray to Saint Greta of Thunberg. Now, in 2025, here’s the result: no new pipelines, no extra supply, and “crushing bills” landing on families who can barely cover groceries and housing.

This is what happens when political vanity meets basic utility. Healey wanted to be a climate warrior. Massachusetts voters wanted affordable heat. Guess who wins? Spoiler: it’s not the voters.

And let’s be clear: Healey’s outrage isn’t about the families getting clobbered. It’s about political damage control. Winter heating bills don’t care about talking points. When those bills show up in January with numbers that look like your mortgage payment, people get angry — not at utilities, but at the politicians who made sure there wasn’t enough fuel to go around.

The Mass Daily News piece nails it: “Healey wants the spotlight as the savior, railing against corporations and regulators, but many see her as the arsonist-turned-firefighter, raging against flames she lit herself”. You can almost hear the campaign ad: “This winter, the politics won’t heat your home. The bill will.”

And boy, that bill will. Families are going to get hammered. And while Healey postures about “standing up to Big Utility,” the reality is that utilities can’t conjure gas out of thin air. When you kill pipelines, you kill supply. When you kill supply, you pay more. It’s that simple.

There’s a dark humor in all this. The very people who elected this green messiah are now stuck paying for her crusade. They wanted to save the planet, and instead they’re saving up for extra blankets. It’s the political equivalent of demanding kale at every meal, then acting surprised when you’re still hungry.

But here’s the bigger point: this isn’t incompetence. It’s intentional. The climate left believes pain is the point. They want energy expensive, because they think that will force people into “green choices.” In reality, it forces people into poverty, but hey — as long as the activists feel virtuous at their donor banquets, who cares?

And yet, there’s always that delicious hypocrisy. These same leaders who tell you to “tighten your belt” on heating costs are the ones jetting to climate conferences in Europe. They shut down pipelines for you, then make sure their government offices are toasty warm all winter. They demand “sacrifice” while living like royalty. If the Romans had this level of hypocrisy, Nero would have fiddled while somebody else froze.

So now we head into winter with a state full of furious voters, a governor trying desperately to memory-hole her pipeline-killing past, and utility bills that could double as ransom notes. And when the people shiver, remember who brought them to this place. It wasn’t Eversource. It wasn’t some greedy executive. It was the governor who thought green ideology mattered more than warm homes.

The politics won’t heat your home. The bill will. And when it lands, every Massachusetts voter should tape it to their fridge with one question scrawled across the top in red marker: “How’s that climate leadership working out for you?”

Author’s Note: Yes, I’m home, no surgery, wearing a neck brace for three months, and consider myself incredibly blessed and lucky for not being paralyzed or dead. As someone told me today, I just missed the death offramp and now all my time is bonus time.

Carbon Dioxide pipeline battle: Seize land for Green Energy?

A battle is underway in five Midwest states over construction of carbon dioxide (CO2) pipelines as part of the green energy transition. Opposition to wide-area pipeline networks is rising from farms and communities. But utilities and state governments intend to seize land over landowner protests.

From CFACT

By Steve Goreham

A battle is underway in five Midwest states over construction of carbon dioxide (CO2) pipelines as part of the green energy transition. Opposition to wide-area pipeline networks is rising from farms and communities. But utilities and state governments intend to seize land over landowner protests.

On June 25, the Iowa Utilities Board (IUB) granted the petition of Summit Carbon Solutions (Summit) for a permit to build a CO2 pipeline across Iowa. The IUB determined that the pipeline was for “public use” and granted Summit the right to seize land from Iowa landowners using eminent domain. Eminent domain has typically been used to take private land for government projects that serve a public good but not for private industry.

Summit plans to build pipelines across Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, North Dakota, and South Dakota to transport captured CO2 to deep underground storage sites in North Dakota. The cost of the 2,500-mile project is about $5.5 billion.

Summit seeks billions of dollars from the federal government. If the pipeline network becomes operational, the company will receive up to $85 per metric ton in tax credits under Section 45Q of the Internal Revenue Code. The firm intends to sequester up to 18 million tons of CO2 each year to annually receive tax credits of over $1.5 billion. Summit claims to have signed agreements with over 2,700 landowners to build the pipeline.

Ethanol producers in the five states are interested in participating in the project. Captured CO2 from 57 ethanol plants would be sold to Summit, providing a revenue stream for producers. Billions in federal funds may also be available to ethanol plants that capture CO2. In addition, reducing CO2 emissions may allow ethanol producers to qualify their product as Sustainable Aviation Fuel for commercial airlines.

Supporters claim the project will deliver environmental benefits in the fight against climate change. Summit says the annual CO2 emissions savings will be equal to removing 3.9 million vehicles from our roads. But, the project is fraught with feasibility and cost, environmental, and safety problems.

The feasibility and cost track record of CO2 capture is poor. There are 47 major carbon dioxide capture and storage (CCS) plants operating in the world today, and most are money losers, even with heavy subsidies. Ethanol plants that pursue CCS will likely lose money, along with the taxpayers who provide the subsidies.

For example, the Quest CCS project operated by Shell in Alberta, Canada, captures only 35% of the CO2 emitted from a chemical process to upgrade bitumen from oil sands. The capital cost of the project is $811 million, entirely paid for with C$865 million in grants from the Canadian and Alberta governments. The Quest CCS operation will cost $41 million a year to run, with only $27 million per year offset by payments from carbon credit subsidies.

The environmental benefits from the Summit project will be tiny. CO2 captured from Midwest ethanol plants will do little to affect global temperatures. Today, all of the world’s operating CCS facilities capture only 0.1% of industrial emissions. Even the Sierra Club opposes the Summit pipeline and calls CCS efforts “false climate solutions.”

CO2 pipelines come with huge safety issues. Only about 5,000 miles of CO2 pipelines exist in the U.S., compared to 84,000 miles of crude oil pipelines and three million miles for natural gas. Most CO2 pipelines transport liquified CO2 short distances to oil fields, where it is pumped underground to force oil and gas to the surface.

CO2 in pipelines is a liquid under high pressure. If it leaks, it turns to gas as it rushes out. Since it is heavier than air, it stays close to the ground and can cover wide areas. CO2 is harmless in small quantities, but in large amounts, it is an asphyxiate, can force oxygen out of people’s lungs, and can cause headaches, dizziness, serious injuries, and death.

On February 22, 2020, a CO2 pipeline ruptured in Sartaria, Mississippi. The rupture occurred on a Saturday and spewed CO2 for about four hours. An invisible cloud of CO2 moved through the rural community, forcing more than 200 people to evacuate and at least 45 to be hospitalized. Victims were unable to breathe and suffered unconsciousness and fits of shaking. No one died during the incident, but some victims continue to suffer ongoing physical problems.

As a result of feasibility and safety concerns, opposition to the pipeline is growing. Proponents and opponents battle in state legislatures and at public utility meetings. Counties in all five states have recently passed bans or restrictions on CO2 pipelines.

North Dakota regulators denied Summit’s application last August but have agreed to reconsider. Last month, Illinois passed a bill putting CO2 pipeline construction on hold until 2026. South Dakota regulators denied Summit’s application last September, but the legislature passed a package of regulations earlier this year that may aid approval of the pipeline network. South Dakota voters can reject that package of regulations on this year’s November 5 ballot.

The Summit pipeline project would not exist without vast federal subsidies for CCS. We have plenty of CO2 for soft drinks and other uses. Huge subsidies, driven by the fear of human-caused global warming, are the only reason to try to seize land from farmers in Midwest states.

Even if this huge pipeline system is built and CO2 is captured at 57 ethanol plants, the effect on global emissions will be insignificant, and the effect on global temperatures will not be measurable.

Land for pipelines is not the only case where land is being seized to promote green energy. The US Department of Energy recently announced plans to use eminent domain to seize land across wide areas to build transmission towers for new wind and solar systems. Illinois and Michigan passed laws blocking restrictions and outright bans by local communities on deployment of wind and solar systems. Governments consider the fight against human-caused climate change more important than the property rights of citizens.

This article originally appeared at Real Clear Energy