October 2010 - EC - lists.cheatlakeclear.org

Wyoming's fed-bucking approach to environmental policy
by Paul Wilson 07 Dec '10

07 Dec '10

Info Frack forward Wyoming's fed-bucking approach to environmental policy News - From the October 01, 2010 issue of High Country News<http://www.hcn.org/issues/42.17> by Cally Carswell Document Actions <http://www.hcn.org/issues/42.17/frack-forward/image_viewer> On Sept. 15, Wyoming activated new rules requiring energy companies to identify the chemicals they inject underground to break up rocks in order to free trapped oil and gas. Critics suspect that the process -- known as hydraulic fracturing, or fracking -- can contaminate groundwater. Evidence has been elusive, though, in part because drilling companies have been allowed to keep their chemical recipes largely secret. The new rules -- the nation's strictest -- were a surprisingly easy sell in Wyoming, where extractive industries almost single-handedly keep state coffers plump and exercise proportional political clout. At Democratic Gov. Dave Freudenthal's behest, the state's Oil and Gas Conservation Commission unanimously signed off on them in June. Though Halliburton protested some, most in the industry seemed unfazed. At the end of this month, the Associated Press reported that drillers even seemed "eager to comply." Anticipating similar moves by President Obama's Environmental Protection Agency, which recently increased its scrutiny of fracking, Wyoming wrote the rules as a message to the feds: Your help is not needed here. Federal "meddling" has always irked Wyoming's leaders. But under Freudenthal, the state has favored a curious strategy for fending off federal regulators: Beat them to the punch with its own cutting-edge environmental policies. In 2007, with a lawsuit pending over the U.S. Fish and Wildlife's decision not to list the greater sage grouse as endangered, Freudenthal ordered state officials, conservationists and industry reps to map the bird's vital habitat. Within those "core areas," the state has tightly restricted oil, gas and wind development, all thought to disrupt grouse breeding -- a significant improvement over the Bureau of Land Management's style of developing first and dealing with impacts later. It's not a perfect plan -- core areas are strategically penciled to exclude the best gas patches, say critics, making places like the Powder River Basin sacrifice zones. And Freudenthal has called the grouse "one of the ugliest, stupidest birds I ever knew." Still, he's willing to defend it to protect Wyoming's natural gas industry. His office estimates that a listing would subject 83 percent of gas producers to new regulations. "What we live on in this state is mineral revenues," said Freudenthal energy advisor Aaron Clark in 2009, "and we would be subjecting a lot of that to the vagaries of the Endangered Species Act." For now, the plan has kept federal regulation at bay. When the Interior Department this year again declined to protect the grouse, officials commended Wyoming's efforts. And Interior Secretary Ken Salazar has encouraged other states with sagebrush habitat to adopt the core-area model. Wyoming hopes the feds will be similarly seduced by its new fracking law, as well as pioneering rules developed over the last two years for future carbon capture and sequestration projects. Shannon Anderson, a lawyer for the Powder River Basin Resource Council, a local environmental group, calls the latter "generally good rules." But they're less cautious than similar rules drafted by the EPA, which aim to protect drinking water by considering only deep, briny aquifers as potential carbon storage sites. Wyoming's rules could allow injections in shallow geologic formations, potentially even those that overlie drinking water sources. "They were designed to beat EPA and hopefully get them to follow, rather than dictate, Wyoming's approach," Anderson says. It's encouraging to see Wyoming advance environmental regulation instead of relax it, as the previous governor did to ease coalbed methane development, and as the Bush-Cheney administration did with fracking. But local environmentalists caution that the new policies aren't necessarily evidence that Wyoming's gone green. "All these rules are baby steps in terms of what we really need to accomplish to address the impacts we have in the state," Anderson says, adding that Wyoming is in "an already compromised position." Between 2001 and 2005, sage grouse populations near coalbed methane development in the Powder River Basin declined by 82 percent. Freudenthal refuses to moderate Wyoming's anti-wolf stance, jeopardizing the state's chances to manage the animals. And requiring frackers to disclose their chemicals won't protect groundwater if drillers remain exempt from the Safe Drinking Water Act. "The idea is to get these rules in place and stop Congress from passing (comprehensive legislation), which would actually protect public health and safety," Anderson says. Imperfect as it may be, Wyoming's breakaway approach to environmental regulation is gaining favor among some surprising constituencies. Last month, Cathy Woollums, an executive of MidAmerican Energy Holdings Co., a coal-reliant utility behemoth, came to the Wyoming Legislature with an unexpected request: Regulate greenhouse gases. Congressional inaction is creating too much uncertainty in the utility business, she said. And, in any case, MidAmerican would rather answer to Wyoming than the EPA. -- Paul Wilson Sierra Club 504 Jefferson Ave Charles Town, WV 25414-1130 Phone: 304-725-4360 Cell: 304-279-1361 "There is no forward until you have gone back" ~Buddha "In all things of nature there is something of the marvelous" ~ Aristotle

3 2

Fwd: State energy efficiency rankings
by James Kotcon 02 Nov '10

02 Nov '10

West Virginia ranks 43rd in energy efficiency among the states, dropping from 35th place in the first scorecard in 2006. Lossing points for building codes was one contributor. JBK ---------------------------------------------------------------------- To get off this list, send email to: LISTSERV(a)LISTS.SIERRACLUB.ORG Make the message text (not the Subject): SIGNOFF CONS-FRED The American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE) has released <http://www.aceee.org/sector/state-policy/scorecard> a new report ranking states by the strength of their energy efficiency policies. Has your chapter won substantial victories to improve energy efficiency in your state? If so, be sure to let us know by filling out our victory reporting form <http://tinyurl.com/y8fn9an> . In the meantime, if you're looking for some good news, check out these recent victories won by Sierra Club activists throughout the country: Scott Elkins, Director for Chapter Coordination Sierra Club 612-659-9124

2 1

Re: [EC] Fwd: [GW-ACT-LEADERS] Environmental Regs Cause Nat Gas to Replace Coal for Electric Generation
by Jim Sconyers 30 Oct '10

30 Oct '10

SC and the Wetzel folks are trying to drag EPA in on the air pollution aspect of Marcellus. Jim Sconyers jim_scon(a)yahoo.com 304.698.9628 Remember: Mother Nature bats last. ________________________________ From: Beth Little <blittle(a)citynet.net> To: James Kotcon <jkotcon(a)wvu.edu>; ec(a)osenergy.org Sent: Sat, October 30, 2010 7:32:35 PM Subject: Re: [EC] Fwd: [GW-ACT-LEADERS] Environmental Regs Cause Nat Gas to Replace Coal for Electric Generation I've really been wrestling with this, because I want to see ALL coal phased out, and I don't want the amount of gas drilling it would take to replace it. I also don't want any stupid developments like coal to liquid, windmills on every forested ridge in WV, biomass plants burning up all the trees, power lines through WV taking (supposed) renewable energy from the midwest to the east coast. So what's left. My answer is efficiency, but I don't see it happening, because of the influence of the fossil fuel industry on our government (both legislators and regulators), the influence of the fossil fuel industry on voters through misleading advertising and public relations, and the natural resistance of people to change, especially giving up their wasteful habits. What I'm left with is working like hell for regulations to minimize impacts and suing whenever possible to slow the destruction down. Maybe we can slow it down enough to cause some blackouts. That's probably the only thing that will bring any real change. If EPA regulations are going to be the reason for retiring lots of coal, maybe that is the place to go for regulating gas drilling. ________________________________ From: ec-bounces(a)osenergy.org [mailto:ec-bounces@osenergy.org] On Behalf Of James Kotcon Sent: Saturday, October 30, 2010 6:36 PM To: ec(a)osenergy.org Subject: [EC] Fwd: [GW-ACT-LEADERS] Environmental Regs Cause Nat Gas to Replace Coal for Electric Generation This investment newsletter predicts phasing out 20-25 % of coal capacity by 2020, due solely to mercury, NOx and SO2 regulations. Natural gas (and some renewables) will be taking up the slack. How do we get ready for this? JBK ________________________________ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 10.0.1153 / Virus Database: 424/3228 - Release Date: 10/30/10 _______________________________________________ EC mailing list EC(a)osenergy.org http://osenergy.org/mailman/listinfo/ec

1 0

Fwd: [GW-ACT-LEADERS] Environmental Regs Cause Nat Gas to Replace Coal for Electric Generation
by James Kotcon 30 Oct '10

30 Oct '10

This investment newsletter predicts phasing out 20-25 % of coal capacity by 2020, due solely to mercury, NOx and SO2 regulations. Natural gas (and some renewables) will be taking up the slack. How do we get ready for this? JBK

3 3

TransGas hearing results
by James Kotcon 29 Oct '10

29 Oct '10

The hearing before the WV Air Quality Board over our appeal of the air permit for the TransGas Coal-To-Liquids plant was held Wed & Thursday. I just got off a conference call with some folks over the results. The comment below reflect my understanding of what happened, so someone please correct me if I get it wrong. Basically, the AQB listened carefully to our arguments, and appeared to grasp some key points made by our wonderful attorney, Elena Saxonhouse. One of our major issues is the claim by DEP & TransGas that the facility is a "Minor Source" rather than a "Major Source". Major Sources have significantly more stringent requirements for an air permit, including requirements that the facility model pollutant dispersion, and that they determine the "Best Available Control Technology" (BACT). TransGas did not include certain emissions in their application, which kept them under the threshold for Major Source. DEP approved the permit as submitted by TransGas, arguing that any emissions not included in the permit would be violations of the permit. Our concern is that, once the plant is built, these emissions could be added to the permit as a minor modification and they would continue operating as a major source without meeting the intent of the Clean Air Act. One major source of emissions is a "flare" used to burn off waste gases. Unfortunately, flares are inherently hard to monitor, and DEP simply assumed that the emissions would be small and therefore the facility as a whole would meet the Minor Source limit. The Air Quality Board seemed receptive to our argument that, to be adequately protective, the air permit had to either measure the emissions to show they were under the limit, or they would have to assume that they could be larger than DEP assumed. Another major source is that Transgas never included emissions from a wastewater treatment plant. They argued that the plant has not been designed yet, and that they may ship the water off site to another facility, and therefore the emissions should not be included in their air permit. We argued that simply omitting the emissions from a required step in the process was not permitted under the Clean Air Act, as it would allow any major source to avoid major source requirements simply by segmenting the facility into tiny little parts, when the whole facility was still a major source. While the Air Quality Board listened carefully to two full days of testimony, and we have good legal arguments, we should not assume that the AQB is a friendly body. Closing briefs will be filed over the next few weeks, so we do not expect a decision for a couple months. On a related note, I hope you all saw the announcement this week by Gov. Manchin that TransGas had settled on an "engineering and procurement contractor". In addition, they had reached an agreement with the Affiliated Construction Trades union to assure that the plant would be built by union labor. We remain very skeptical that this plant would ever get financing, and it was not clear that the EPC contractor or anyone else has actually committed to building anything. The facility's air permit is under challenge (by us), none of the other needed permit applications have even been submitted, and many key features still do not have a final design (e.g., waste water treatment). So even if the air permit were approved, they are still a long way from ever getting anything built. We should not assume we have already lost, but neither should we take for granted that such a crazy idea will be easily rejected. Endless pressure, endlessly applied! Jim Kotcon 304-2903-8822 (office) 304-594-3322 (home)

1 1

Fwd: WV Governor, TransGas Development Systems Announce Coal to Gasoline Project
by Paul Wilson 29 Oct '10

29 Oct '10

fyi, paul ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: DAVID E ORTMAN <deortman(a)msn.com> Date: Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 12:16 AM Subject: RE: WV Governor, TransGas Development Systems Announce Coal to Gasoline Project To: pjgrunt(a)gmail.com, coal-campaign-alerts(a)lists.sierraclub.org FR: David E. Ortman, Seattle, WA Regarding coal to gasoline, Scientific American was not impressed in 2007. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=worse-than-gasoline Apparently some are proposing to use nuclear energy to power the damn conversion process! ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2010 20:59:37 -0400 From: pjgrunt(a)GMAIL.COM Subject: Fwd: WV Governor, TransGas Development Systems Announce Coal to Gasoline Project To: COAL-CAMPAIGN-ALERTS(a)LISTS.SIERRACLUB.ORG fyi, paul ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: *Frank Young* <fyoung(a)mountain.net> Date: Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 4:21 PM Subject: [EC] Fw: Governor, TransGas Development Systems Announce Coal to Gasoline Project To: ec(a)osenergy.org, wvec-board(a)yahoogroups.com, WVHCBOARD(a)yahoogroups.com In Mingo County, coal to liquids- long awaited announcement .................... ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: **<governor(a)wv.gov> Date: Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 2:35 PM Subject: Governor, TransGas Development Systems Announce Coal to Gasoline Project To: trouserdude(a)gmail.com Oct. 28, 2010 *GOVERNOR, TRANSGAS DEVELOPMENT SYSTEMS ANNOUNCE COAL TO GASOLINE PROJECT **TransGas president says that coal to gasoline project will be first in the nation and a model for the country to regain its energy independence and put Americans to work* Contact: Melvin Smith, 304-558-2000 or Adam Victor, 917-816-3700 or adamvictor(a)transgasdevelopment.com CHARLESTON, W.Va. – After four years of continuous effort, Gov. Joe Manchin and TransGas Development Systems President Adam Victor, along with several state and local representatives, today announced that the company has selected its Engineering Procurement Contractor (EPC) and technology provider for its coal to gasoline facility that will be built in Mingo County, West Virginia. This facility will be the nation’s first and largest of its kind in the world. Representatives from the state Building and Construction Trades Council, along with representatives from the EPC contractor and the project technology provider were also present for today’s announcement. The project will be built by SK Engineering & Construction and will utilize the technology of Uhde GmbH, one of the world’s largest construction companies, using premier coal gasification technology. The governor commended the efforts of TransGas Development Systems, SK Engineering and Uhde GmbH for their partnership with the state of West Virginia. “This project indicates how serious we are about matching our abundant coal resources with the technology available to produce clean energy. West Virginia is fully committed to being a leader in energy self-sufficiency and this development shows that we are dedicated to using our coal resources as prudently as possible. This project’s success will truly be far-reaching for the coal industry,” said the governor. During today’s meeting, Victor reminded officials that four years ago, he was on the verge of relocating his operations overseas after facing years of challenges while trying to convince officials across the Northeast to make the tough decision to support necessary energy infrastructure development. Only after Mr. Victor met Governor Manchin did he realize that West Virginia could be a place where energy infrastructure could be built and supported by state and local officials. “Four years ago, TransGas found, in Governor Joe Manchin, a leader who understood the importance of coal as the primary asset to developing America’s future energy independence. Moreover, he understood the need to forcefully address the many fallacies that have arisen surrounding the environmental effects of mining and using coal. “Governor Joe Manchin also understood that a fleet of coal to liquid plants would form the cornerstone of a resurgence of American industrial might – built by skilled American unionized construction tradesmen, working in close concert with project owners. Simply put, if not for the governor, we would not have invested the time, nor effort into this project and this project would not exist today,” said TransGas president, Adam Victor. Victor praised the governor for bringing the construction trades union together with his chosen contractor and technology provider to ensure that this project will be built by skilled West Virginia workers, on time and under budget. This project will convert regional coal into 756,000 gallons of premium grade ultraclean gasoline a day. Put in proper perspective, less than fifty of these Coal to Gasoline facilities nationwide would eliminate 100 percent of America’s need to import foreign gasoline; create nearly 150,000 jobs and make the United States a net exporter of gasoline. SK E&C (www.skec.com) is an arm of SK group (www.sk.com), Korea's third largest corporation and one of the leading business organizations in the world. SK is made up of 40 companies including seven that are listed on the Korea Stock Exchange. SK has a presence on six continents and 25,000 employees. SK E&C is one of the world’s most qualified engineering, procurement, construction, and maintenance services organizations. Their experience includes Korea’s largest oil refinery, the Cadereyta and Madero Refinery upgrades in Mexico, full-scale refinery projects in Kuwait, Brazil and Ghana. Udhe GmbH is one of Germany's ThyssenKrupp AG's 670 companies who employ almost 200,000 employees worldwide. In addition to a 50-year history of developing gasification technologies, Udhe is one of the world's leading engineering groups specializing in the design of chemical, refining and other industrial plants in all four corners of the globe with more than 2,000 plants to its credit. More information on TransGas Development Systems LLC is available at http://www.transgasdevelopment.com/ . Contact: Adam Victor, 917-816-3700 or adamvictor(a)transgasdevelopment.com # # # Cheers, Daniel Chiotos Keeper of the Mountains Foundation Operations Director http://www.mountainkeeper.org 179 Summers St, Suite 234 Charleston, WV, 25301 (304)886-3389 - cell (304)205-0920 - office* <http://appalachiarising.org/> "WE ARE THE KEEPERS OF THE MOUNTAINS, LOVE THEM OR LEAVE THEM, JUST DON'T DESTROY THEM. IF YOU CARE TO BE ONE TOO, CALL 304-542-1134 OR 304-205-0920."* - Larry Gibson _______________________________________________ EC mailing list EC(a)osenergy.org http://osenergy.org/mailman/listinfo/ec -- Paul Wilson Sierra Club 504 Jefferson Ave Charles Town, WV 25414-1130 Phone: 304-725-4360 Cell: 304-279-1361 "There is no forward until you have gone back" ~Buddha "In all things of nature there is something of the marvelous" ~ Aristotle - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - To unsubscribe from the COAL-CAMPAIGN-ALERTS list, send any message to: COAL-CAMPAIGN-ALERTS-signoff-request(a)LISTS.SIERRACLUB.ORG Check out our Listserv Lists support site for more information: http://www.sierraclub.org/lists/faq.asp Sign up to receive Sierra Club Insider, the flagship e-newsletter. Sent out twice a month, it features the Club's latest news and activities. Subscribe and view recent editions at http://www.sierraclub.org/insider/ -- Paul Wilson Sierra Club 504 Jefferson Ave Charles Town, WV 25414-1130 Phone: 304-725-4360 Cell: 304-279-1361 "There is no forward until you have gone back" ~Buddha "In all things of nature there is something of the marvelous" ~ Aristotle

1 0

Fw: Governor, TransGas Development Systems Announce Coal to Gasoline Project
by Frank Young 28 Oct '10

28 Oct '10

In Mingo County, coal to liquids- long awaited announcement .................... ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: <governor(a)wv.gov> Date: Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 2:35 PM Subject: Governor, TransGas Development Systems Announce Coal to Gasoline Project To: trouserdude(a)gmail.com Oct. 28, 2010 GOVERNOR, TRANSGAS DEVELOPMENT SYSTEMS ANNOUNCE COAL TO GASOLINE PROJECT TransGas president says that coal to gasoline project will be first in the nation and a model for the country to regain its energy independence and put Americans to work Contact: Melvin Smith, 304-558-2000 or Adam Victor, 917-816-3700 or adamvictor(a)transgasdevelopment.com CHARLESTON, W.Va. – After four years of continuous effort, Gov. Joe Manchin and TransGas Development Systems President Adam Victor, along with several state and local representatives, today announced that the company has selected its Engineering Procurement Contractor (EPC) and technology provider for its coal to gasoline facility that will be built in Mingo County, West Virginia. This facility will be the nation’s first and largest of its kind in the world. Representatives from the state Building and Construction Trades Council, along with representatives from the EPC contractor and the project technology provider were also present for today’s announcement. The project will be built by SK Engineering & Construction and will utilize the technology of Uhde GmbH, one of the world’s largest construction companies, using premier coal gasification technology. The governor commended the efforts of TransGas Development Systems, SK Engineering and Uhde GmbH for their partnership with the state of West Virginia. “This project indicates how serious we are about matching our abundant coal resources with the technology available to produce clean energy. West Virginia is fully committed to being a leader in energy self-sufficiency and this development shows that we are dedicated to using our coal resources as prudently as possible. This project’s success will truly be far-reaching for the coal industry,” said the governor. During today’s meeting, Victor reminded officials that four years ago, he was on the verge of relocating his operations overseas after facing years of challenges while trying to convince officials across the Northeast to make the tough decision to support necessary energy infrastructure development. Only after Mr. Victor met Governor Manchin did he realize that West Virginia could be a place where energy infrastructure could be built and supported by state and local officials. “Four years ago, TransGas found, in Governor Joe Manchin, a leader who understood the importance of coal as the primary asset to developing America’s future energy independence. Moreover, he understood the need to forcefully address the many fallacies that have arisen surrounding the environmental effects of mining and using coal. “Governor Joe Manchin also understood that a fleet of coal to liquid plants would form the cornerstone of a resurgence of American industrial might – built by skilled American unionized construction tradesmen, working in close concert with project owners. Simply put, if not for the governor, we would not have invested the time, nor effort into this project and this project would not exist today,” said TransGas president, Adam Victor. Victor praised the governor for bringing the construction trades union together with his chosen contractor and technology provider to ensure that this project will be built by skilled West Virginia workers, on time and under budget. This project will convert regional coal into 756,000 gallons of premium grade ultraclean gasoline a day. Put in proper perspective, less than fifty of these Coal to Gasoline facilities nationwide would eliminate 100 percent of America’s need to import foreign gasoline; create nearly 150,000 jobs and make the United States a net exporter of gasoline. SK E&C (www.skec.com) is an arm of SK group (www.sk.com), Korea's third largest corporation and one of the leading business organizations in the world. SK is made up of 40 companies including seven that are listed on the Korea Stock Exchange. SK has a presence on six continents and 25,000 employees. SK E&C is one of the world’s most qualified engineering, procurement, construction, and maintenance services organizations. Their experience includes Korea’s largest oil refinery, the Cadereyta and Madero Refinery upgrades in Mexico, full-scale refinery projects in Kuwait, Brazil and Ghana. Udhe GmbH is one of Germany's ThyssenKrupp AG's 670 companies who employ almost 200,000 employees worldwide. In addition to a 50-year history of developing gasification technologies, Udhe is one of the world's leading engineering groups specializing in the design of chemical, refining and other industrial plants in all four corners of the globe with more than 2,000 plants to its credit. More information on TransGas Development Systems LLC is available at http://www.transgasdevelopment.com/ . Contact: Adam Victor, 917-816-3700 or adamvictor(a)transgasdevelopment.com # # # Cheers, Daniel Chiotos Keeper of the Mountains Foundation Operations Director http://www.mountainkeeper.org 179 Summers St, Suite 234 Charleston, WV, 25301 (304)886-3389 - cell (304)205-0920 - office "WE ARE THE KEEPERS OF THE MOUNTAINS, LOVE THEM OR LEAVE THEM, JUST DON'T DESTROY THEM. IF YOU CARE TO BE ONE TOO, CALL 304-542-1134 OR 304-205-0920." - Larry Gibson

1 0

Fwd: ENEWS: Climate Change and the Future of Coal
by James Kotcon 26 Oct '10

26 Oct '10

Climate Change and the Future of Coal: A Legal Perspective presented at WVU College of LawMichaelB. Gerrard the Andrew Sabin Professor of Professional Practice atColumbia Law School, will present "Climate Change and the Future ofCoal, " at 11 a.m., Monday, Nov. 1 in the Marlyn E. Lugar Courtroom atthe WVU Law Center. For full release, see: http://wvutoday.wvu.edu/n/2010/10/26/climate-change-and-the-future-of-coal-… RESEARCH

1 0

Re: [EC] Fwd: Article - Patriot Coal reports $46M third-quarter loss
by Jim Sconyers 25 Oct '10

25 Oct '10

Can't make money mining coal in WV - who'd a thunk it! And our recent hammering them on selenium will ramp up the cost of mining considerably. Jim Sconyers jim_scon(a)yahoo.com 304.698.9628 Remember: Mother Nature bats last. ________________________________ From: James Kotcon <jkotcon(a)wvu.edu> To: ehansen(a)downstreamstrategies.com; pbjmwood(a)gmail.com; jim_scon(a)yahoo.com Sent: Mon, October 25, 2010 10:03:05 AM Subject: Fwd: Article - Patriot Coal reports $46M third-quarter loss Note: Forwarded message is attached. The attached news article may suggest why Patriot is a little desperate. JBK

1 0

shutting coal-fired plants in Colorado
by Jim Sconyers 22 Oct '10

22 Oct '10

http://www.wvgazette.com/ap/ApTopStories/201010210966 Shutting down coal plants on Colorado. Jim Sconyers jim_scon(a)yahoo.com 304.698.9628 Remember: Mother Nature bats last.

1 0

climate change deniers at the highest levels - scary
by Jim Sconyers 21 Oct '10

21 Oct '10

FYI Jim Sconyers jim_scon(a)yahoo.com 304.698.9628 Remember: Mother Nature bats last. ----- Forwarded Message ---- From: John Blair <Ecoserve1(a)AOL.COM> To: COAL-COMBUSTION-WASTE(a)LISTS.SIERRACLUB.ORG Sent: Thu, October 21, 2010 3:44:40 PM Subject: Fwd: [air-mail] Coal waste Thanks again to environmental consultant extraordinaire, Alex Sagady for his sharp eye on these things. Check out the Valley Watch website at: http://valleywatch.net John Blair "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win." Mahatma Gandhi 800 Adams Avenue Evansville, IN 47713 812-464-5663 In accordance with title 17 U. S. Code, Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior general interest in receiving similar information for research and educational purposes. Begin forwarded message: From: ajs(a)sagady.com > >Date: October 21, 2010 11:28:33 AM CDT > >To: air-mail(a)yahoogroups.com > >Subject: [air-mail] Coal waste > > > > >In FR Today: >Coal Combustion Residual Surface Impoundments; Data Availability, >64974-64976 >http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2010/2010-26657.htm > > > > > > > >__._,_.___ > > >Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional >Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required) >Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully >Featured >Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe > > >__,_._,___ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - To unsubscribe from the COAL-COMBUSTION-WASTE list, send any message to: COAL-COMBUSTION-WASTE-signoff-request(a)LISTS.SIERRACLUB.ORG Check out our Listserv Lists support site for more information: http://www.sierraclub.org/lists/faq.asp To view the Sierra Club List Terms & Conditions, see: http://www.sierraclub.org/lists/terms.asp

1 0

Fw: Coal ash in water worries officials
by Jim Sconyers 20 Oct '10

20 Oct '10

Jim Sconyers jim_scon(a)yahoo.com 304.698.9628 Remember: Mother Nature bats last. ----- Forwarded Message ---- From: Midge Sweet <sweetmidge(a)GMAIL.COM> To: COAL-COMBUSTION-WASTE(a)LISTS.SIERRACLUB.ORG Sent: Wed, October 20, 2010 10:23:01 AM Subject: Re: Coal ash in water worries officials Dear Friend – Since taking office, President Obama has directed his Administration to craft policies to create a clean energy economy and protect our environment and public spaces. There is no better example of the achievements made towards those goals and the harmony between them than in the Southwest. For example, just two weeks ago, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar announced the first ever Solar Energy projects on public lands, the first projects in a series to be built on public lands after complete environmental analyses by the Department of Interior. We would like to invite you to join a conference call Thursday, October 21st at 5:00 PM ET to have a conversation with Interior Secretary Ken Salazar and other Administration officials about clean energy and the environment in the Southwest. We would like to tell you about some of the initiatives this Administration has started, and then we would like to take your questions and hear your ideas and stories. Please feel free send this invitation out widely to your networks. You can also RSVP by sending an email torfee(a)who.eop.gov. We are looking forward to it. Call-in Information: Date: Thursday, October 21th, 2010 Time: 5:00 PM EDT Number: (800) 762-6085 Name: Southwest Energy and Environmental Call This call is for information purposes only, and not for press or attribution. Thank you. Greg Nelson, Deputy Director, White House Office of Public Engagement ________________________________ Dear Friend – Since taking office, President Obama and his Administration have made environmental protection a top priority and have authorized new initiatives to protect our natural resources and great outdoors. In the Midwest, actions such as the EPA’s Great Lakes Restoration Initiative, Clean Air and Water Initiatives, and the America’s Great Outdoors Initiative all show the commitment the President and his Administration have made to protecting the environment and air and water conservation. This president also recognized the power of actively engaged citizens to contribute new ideas and has committed his Administration to engaging communities to hear their ideas on issues important to them. As part of that commitment, we would like to invite you to a conference call this Friday, October 22nd at 3:30pm to have a conversation with Administrator Lisa Jackson and other Administration officials about environmental protection and the Midwest. We would like to share with you some of the initiatives this Administration has started, and take your questions and hear your ideas and stories. Please feel free send this invitation out widely to your networks. You can also RSVP by sending an email torfee(a)who.eop.gov. We are looking forward to it. Call-in Information: Date: Friday, October 22, 2010 Time: 3:30 PM EST Number: (800) 230-1092 Name: Midwest Environmental Call This call is for information purposes only, and not for press or attribution. On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 9:46 AM, Lisa Evans <levans(a)earthjustice.org> wrote: More contamination from Duke Plants in NC: > >Coal ash in water worries officials > >Mecklenburg urges state to get stricter on Duke discharge at Mountain Island. > >By Bruce Henderson >bhenderson(a)charlotteobserver.com >Posted: Tuesday, Oct. 19, 2010 > >Coal ash is showing in settling ponds next to Duke Energy's Riverbend Steam >Station at Mountain Island Lake. The discharge is laden with heavy metals that >can be toxic at high levels. 2008 OBSERVER FILE PHOTO - JEFF WILHELM > > >Charlotte-Mecklenburg says state regulators should enforce stricter standards >over what a coal-fired Duke Energy power plant is putting into Charlotte's main >water supply. > >Twice this year, including this month, county staff have detected arsenic above >state standards in Mountain Island Lake near an ash pond discharge pipe from the >Riverbend plant. In May, at the same place, staff members found zinc at nearly >four times the standard. > >Arsenic and zinc are among the metals found in coal ash. The metals could cause >cancer and other diseases if they're swallowed in high doses. > >Duke's discharges into Mountain Island, Lake Wylie and Lake Norman are under >scrutiny as its state permits come up for renewal. A public hearing on permits >for the Riverbend, Allen and Marshall plants, which pipe an average of 23 >million gallons a day from their ash basins into the Catawba, will be held >tonight in Mooresville. > >The N.C. Division of Water Quality has proposed permits that require Duke to >monitor several metals, but doesn't set limits on how much is too much. A state >official says limits are applied only when samples show a "reasonable potential" >to break water standards. > >"The absence of limits in the permit does not mean (the plant) will be allowed >to violate water-quality standards," said Sergei Chernikov, a state >environmental engineer. > >Duke, too, says limits aren't needed because the state already scrutinizes its >discharge. > >"Test after test, sample after sample, shows that Mountain Island Lake has very >good water quality and is protected by current regulations," said Dave Mitchell, >Duke's environmental managing director. "Adding limits just for limits' sake >doesn't protect the lake any more" than current procedures. > >But David Caldwell, an environmental supervisor for Charlotte-Mecklenburg Storm >Water Services, said the state is counting on the size of 2,914-acre Mountain >Island to dilute Duke's wastes. > >"That stuff is sitting on the lake bottom in sediment," he said. "It's got to go >somewhere." > >One of those places is in fish, which take in metals that accumulate up the food >chain. Samples taken nearly a decade ago found high levels of mercury, a toxic >metal also found in coal ash, in Mountain Island fish. > >The county has asked the state to set limits for 14 metals in Riverbend's >discharge, take samples more frequently and monitor water upstream and >downstream of the plant. Mecklenburg also wants the state to analyze fish tissue >once a year. > >"It just seems to make good, common sense to be monitoring this," Caldwell said. > >Duke says Riverbend, which dates to 1929, is scheduled to be closed by 2015. > >Charlotte-Mecklenburg made a similar request for the Allen plant, which >discharges into Lake Wylie. The county cited Duke's own sampling that found high >levels of copper, arsenic and selenium, an element that can be toxic to >wildlife, in its discharge water. > >Duke says it regularly samples water upstream and downstream of its plants and >analyzes fish, as the county asked, reporting their findings to the state. The >utility says it would be redundant to add those requirements to its discharge >permits. > >Chernikov, the state engineer, said the water-quality division does a >statistical analysis of previous water samples to learn whether limits should be >placed on pollutants. The analysis is prescribed by state and federal rules, he >said, and assumes worst-case conditions to err on the side of protecting >environmental health. > >Under their proposed permits, Riverbend, Allen and Marshall would have metals >limits only for copper and iron. > >The permit for the Marshall plant proposes new discharge limits for selenium >beginning in mid-2012. The delay is intended to let Duke prepare for the >stricter regulation, Chernikov said. > >Charlotte-Mecklenburg Utilities, whose Mountain Island water intake is >downstream from the Riverbend plant, won't be filing comments to the state, a >spokesman said. The lake supplies drinking water for about 700,000 people in >Mecklenburg County, Mount Holly and Gastonia. > >"This is our primary water source," said Catawba Riverkeeper David Merryman, who >has also called for limits on metals. "There's not really a fallback." > >Merryman's own tests earlier this year also found high levels of arsenic near >the Riverbend discharge. Tests of fish tissue found no metals above state >guidelines. > >Duke's new permits contain one major change that pleases environmental advocates >like Merryman. For the first time, Duke will be required to monitor the >groundwater around its ash basins and fix any contamination it finds. > >Duke has already found contamination in wells it voluntarily sank close to its >ash ponds at all three plants. Naturally-occurring iron and manganese accounts >for much of the contamination. > >The difference now is that Duke will be under state orders to fix groundwater >violations it finds in a new, outer ring of wells around the ponds. The utility >could face fines if it doesn't comply. > >The water-quality division directed Duke and Raleigh's Progress Energy last >December to install the wells at their 14 coal-fired plants by the end of this >year. Groundwater monitoring will be added to the plants' discharge permits as >they're renewed. > >The Environmental Protection Agency is also mulling tougher rules on ash. > > > >Read more: >http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2010/10/19/1771891/coal-ash-in-water-worri… > > > >Lisa Evans >Senior Administrative Counsel >Earthjustice >21 Ocean Ave. >Marblehead, MA 01945 >T: (781) 631-4119 >F: (212) 918-1556 >www.earthjustice.org > >*please consider the environment before printing > >The information contained in this email message may be privileged, confidential >and protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, any >dissemination, distribution or copying is strictly prohibited. If you think that >you have received this email message in error, please notify the sender by reply >email and delete the message and any attachments. > >- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - >To unsubscribe from the COAL-COMBUSTION-WASTE list, send any message to: >COAL-COMBUSTION-WASTE-signoff-request(a)LISTS.SIERRACLUB.ORG > >Check out our Listserv Lists support site for more information: >http://www.sierraclub.org/lists/faq.asp > -- Midge Sweet Georgians for Smart Energy Coalition 404-688-5430/w • 404-667-4476/cell www.georgiansforsmartenergy.org - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - To unsubscribe from the COAL-COMBUSTION-WASTE list, send any message to: COAL-COMBUSTION-WASTE-signoff-request(a)LISTS.SIERRACLUB.ORG Check out our Listserv Lists support site for more information: http://www.sierraclub.org/lists/faq.asp

1 0

Untapped Wealth: Offshore Wind Can Deliver Cleaner, More Affordable Energy and More Jobs Than Offshore Oil
by William V. DePaulo, Esq. 20 Oct '10

20 Oct '10

*The attached report, generally supportive of Google's proposed offshore wind farm, was prepared by oceana.org who describe themselves as follows: **Oceana, founded in 2001, is the largest international organization focused solely on ocean conservation. Our offices in North America, Central America, South America and Europe work together on a limited number of strategic, directed campaigns to achieve measurable outcomes<http://na.oceana.org/en/about-us/our-victories>that will help return our oceans to former levels of abundance. We believe in the importance of science in identifying problems and solutions. Our scientists work closely with our teams of economists, lawyers and advocates to achieve tangible results for the oceans.* * http://na.oceana.org/ FROM EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Offshore Wind Potential* 1. A small fraction of U.S. renewable energy resources1 is enough to power the country several times over. This could be done in a cost-effective way that minimizes carbon dioxide emissions which drive climate change and threaten our oceans. 2. A modest investment in offshore wind could supply almost half the current electricity generation on the East Coast. 3. Delaware, Massachusetts and North Carolina could generate enough electricity from offshore wind to equal current electricity generation, entirely eliminating the need for fossil fuel based electric generation. n New Jersey, Virginia and South Carolina could supply 92%, 83% and 64% of their current electricity generation with offshore wind, respectively. In all these states, wind could provide more energy than the states currently get from fossil fuels. 4. Offshore wind power offers more environmental benefits and fewer impacts than traditional fuels such as nuclear power, natural gas, coal and oil. *GENERAL FINDINGS* 1. Offshore wind power is located near population centers where electricity demand is highest. Coastal states account for more than three-quarters of U.S. electricity consumption. Other renewable energy is further from these high-demand areas. 2. Offshore wind power is less expensive than many alternatives. In some cases, offshore wind could actually lower electric bills. 3. Offshore wind creates more jobs than offshore drilling. Long-term jobs would be created to support offshore wind development for skilled workers and scientists, including electricians, meteorologists, welders, and turbine operators just to name a few. 4. Offshore wind technology can help build the U.S. economy. While the U.S. has not yet installed any offshore wind farms, Europe has been doing so for 20 years and has become the leading supplier of offshore wind turbines. Building our own domestic manufacturing base would strengthen our economy, allow U.S. expenditures to remain here at home, and allow the U.S. to become an offshore wind technology exporter. n Offshore wind projects should be designed to minimize environmental impacts by using new techniques and technology in the construction, operation and decommissioning process, and by protecting the environment in the siting process. 5. Choosing wind instead of oil and gas, rather than taking an “all-of-the-above” approach, will increase efficiency and lower costs for power production overall.

1 0

Re: [EC] Fwd: How VA is Losing the Competition for Clean Energy Jobs : Virginia Chapter Sierra Club
by kevin fooce 19 Oct '10

19 Oct '10

PA has solar, MD has solar ands biomass OH has been working on this for years and has a Green Energy Ohio group. Kevin Fooce fooce(a)hotmail.com 304-751-1448 work 304-675-6687 home 304-593-2875 cell Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2010 11:49:01 -0700 From: jim_scon(a)yahoo.com Subject: Re: [EC] Fwd: How VA is Losing the Competition for Clean Energy Jobs : Virginia Chapter Sierra Club To: fmoose39(a)hotmail.com; jkotcon(a)wvu.edu; ec(a)osenergy.org; wvec-board(a)yahoogroups.com and are there good sites in other adjoining states besides OH? PA wind turbine plant, . . . Jim Sconyers jim_scon(a)yahoo.com 304.698.9628 Remember: Mother Nature bats last. From: kevin fooce <fmoose39(a)hotmail.com> To: Jim Sconyers <jim_scon(a)yahoo.com>; Jim Kotcon <jkotcon(a)wvu.edu>; ec(a)osenergy.org; wvec-board(a)yahoogroups.com Sent: Tue, October 19, 2010 1:24:52 PM Subject: RE: [EC] Fwd: How VA is Losing the Competition for Clean Energy Jobs : Virginia Chapter Sierra Club I can put a list of projects, organizations, and politicians that are pushing this agenda. Might need someone to for a good write-up though. Can ask my wife, she is a excellent writer. Would take sometime though. I believe this is a good idea that needs published on a wide format so everyone in our state can see the problems we have on clean energy and energy efficiency. The big question is how far do we want to go? Do we want the schools listed? Some of the schools such as OU have positive aspects along with the fact they are now creating a composting facility for the whole city, to Oberlin being one of the top schools in the country for sustainability. Or maybe even list the LEED platinum facility that Hocking tech now host along with being a leader worldwide on fuel cell technologies and other programs they offer. Or would we want to look just at the solar sector and the fact that Ohio now host a 12 megawatt farm with another solar farm to come which will be one of the largest in the nation. Ohio also plays host to First Solar located in Toledo now employing 1500 people and sales about 80% of it's products to China. Or maybe we want to look at the Burger plant that burns a mixture of biomass and coal and will soon be all biomass. Or maybe the fact that Ohio has programs for the farmers to turn the manure into electricity, fertilizer, and Jiffy peat pots. The list is large, what do we want to focus on? Kevin Fooce fooce(a)hotmail.com 304-751-1448 work 304-675-6687 home 304-593-2875 cell Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2010 16:50:15 -0700 From: jim_scon(a)yahoo.com To: jkotcon(a)wvu.edu; ec(a)osenergy.org; wvec-board(a)yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [EC] Fwd: How VA is Losing the Competition for Clean Energy Jobs : Virginia Chapter Sierra Club I'd love to see us put together a message that highlights all the clean energy projects and jobs in, say Ohio, and asking why not us? Jim Sconyers jim_scon(a)yahoo.com 304.698.9628 Remember: Mother Nature bats last. From: James Kotcon <jkotcon(a)wvu.edu> To: ec(a)osenergy.org; wvec-board(a)yahoogroups.com Sent: Mon, October 18, 2010 1:27:31 PM Subject: [EC] Fwd: How VA is Losing the Competition for Clean Energy Jobs : Virginia Chapter Sierra Club Here is a fascinating approach to attracting attention to Green Energy. Why not West Virginia too? JBK >>> Paula Carrell <Paula.Carrell(a)sierraclub.org> 10/18/2010 1:09 PM >>> You all might want to take a look at how the VA Chapter is garnering attention for their take on (unrealized) clean energy opportunities in Virginia. http://vasierraclub.org/2010/10/power-failure-how-virginia-is-losing-the-co… _______________________________________________ EC mailing list EC(a)osenergy.org http://osenergy.org/mailman/listinfo/ec _______________________________________________ EC mailing list EC(a)osenergy.org http://osenergy.org/mailman/listinfo/ec

3 2

FW: [ACTNET-FRAC-NEWS] Sierra Club's Fracking Regulatory Action Center (FRAC) is now on line an
by James Kotcon 19 Oct '10

19 Oct '10

You might find this interesting. JBK _____ From: National Hydrofracking Team [mailto:ACTNET-FRAC-NEWS@LISTS.SIERRACLUB.ORG] On Behalf Of Bruce Hamilton Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 2010 2:58 PM To: ACTNET-FRAC-NEWS(a)LISTS.SIERRACLUB.ORG Subject: [ACTNET-FRAC-NEWS] Sierra Club's Fracking Regulatory Action Center (FRAC) is now on line and available to help your work Colleagues, As part of the Sierra Club's efforts to enact strong standards for the natural gas drilling industry, we're pleased to introduce a new tool, the Fracking Regulatory Action Center (FRAC). This online resource http://sierraclub.org/naturalgas/rulemaking/ is a regularly-updated collection of natural gas rulemaking efforts across the country. FRAC will help connect activists with policy experts, allowing everyone to share what we know and to build on each other's research to secure strong rules for the gas industry. States, municipalities and the federal government are all working on regulatory efforts. FRAC's goal is to track all of these actions and to make it easy for activists to engage with them. The Action Center contains links to key technical documents, records, deadlines and hearing locations, and it points activists toward grassroots groups working on each rulemaking. Action Center users can also find technical comments and reports prepared for rules across the country. You can access the Action Center by visiting http://www.sierraclub.org/naturalgas and clicking on the "Fracking Regulatory Action Center" link. While you're there, check out the rest of the page to learn about the Club's efforts to clean up the natural gas industry. Special thanks to Lane Boldman, Adrian Cotter, Jessica Helm, Craig Segall, Joanne Spalding and Alison Vicks for their work on this. This database will grow and deepen as the activist community uses it. For questions or comments about FRAC, or to add regulatory information, please contact Alison.Vicks(a)sierraclub.org We welcome your feedback on how to improve this tool. Bruce Hamilton - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - To unsubscribe from the ACTNET-FRAC-NEWS list, send any message to: ACTNET-FRAC-NEWS-signoff-request(a)LISTS.SIERRACLUB.ORG Check out our Listserv Lists support site for more information: http://www.sierraclub.org/lists/faq.asp Sign up to receive Sierra Club Insider, the flagship e-newsletter. Sent out twice a month, it features the Club's latest news and activities. Subscribe and view recent editions at http://www.sierraclub.org/insider/

1 0

Fwd: ENEWS: WVU's Law School Lecture
by James Kotcon 19 Oct '10

19 Oct '10

>>> ENEWS ENEWS <ENEWS(a)mail.wvu.edu> 10/19/2010 2:38 PM >>> MOUNTAINEER E-NEWS Tuesday, Oct. 19, 2010 TOP OF THE NEWS LECTURES/PRESENTATIONS 1) Marcellus Shale development to be discussed at College of Law Daniel J. Soeder, a researcher and scientist at the U.S. Department of Energy's National Energy Technology Laboratory in Morgantown will discuss environmental implications from Marcellus Shale natural gas drilling and production at 5 p.m. Wednesday, Oct. 20 in room 157 at the WVU Law Center. The event includes a reception before the presentation at 4 p.m. in the WVU Law Center Lobby.

1 0

Fwd: How VA is Losing the Competition for Clean Energy Jobs : Virginia Chapter Sierra Club
by James Kotcon 19 Oct '10

19 Oct '10

Here is a fascinating approach to attracting attention to Green Energy. Why not West Virginia too? JBK >>> Paula Carrell <Paula.Carrell(a)sierraclub.org> 10/18/2010 1:09 PM >>> You all might want to take a look at how the VA Chapter is garnering attention for their take on (unrealized) clean energy opportunities in Virginia. http://vasierraclub.org/2010/10/power-failure-how-virginia-is-losing-the-co…

3 4

Fwd: FracTracker Training Invitation for Oct 25th Meeting in Morgantown, WV
by Jonathan Rosenbaum 18 Oct '10

18 Oct '10

-------- Original Message -------- Subject: FracTracker Training Invitation for Oct 25th Meeting in Morgantown, WV Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2010 17:24:01 -0400 From: Malone, Samantha Lynn <slm75(a)pitt.edu> To: Malone, Samantha Lynn <slm75(a)pitt.edu> Dear Colleagues, On behalf of Dr. Conrad Dan Volz at the Center for Healthy Environments and Communities (CHEC <http://www.chec.pitt.edu/>) of the University of Pittsburgh Graduate School of Public Health and the Foundation for Pennsylvania Watersheds, I would like to invite you or another representative within your group to attend a training on Monday, October 25, 2010 of key personnel who are working to address Marcellus Shale gas extraction's (MSGE) impact on the environment and public health in West Virginia. During this training, CHEC will introduce participants to FracTracker, a combination of an interactive blog (http://fractracker.org) and data tool (http://data.fractracker.org), that is serving as a vital data-sharing tool in the Marcellus Shale play and beyond. The training is also an open forum for participants to discuss current and anticipated environmental and public health concerns such as emergency preparedness and response to blow outs or spills, degrading road infrastructure, and surface and drinking water contamination. Because the issues we are facing span across many fields, meeting invitees include representatives from diverse groups. This is one of many trainings we are hosting throughout PA, WV, and NY, OH, and MD. Click here to learn more about CHEC and this project: http://www.fractracker.org/p/about-us.html. *Meeting Details:* October 25, 2010 -- 1pm -- 4pm 317 Percival Hall, West Virginia Evansdale Campus, Morgantown, WV 26506 Contact phone # on day of event: 724-554-0989. Free to attend. Parking is free. Permits will be provided upon arrival. An agenda and additional meeting specifics will be sent to registered attendees prior to the training. Important -- In order to work with FracTracker's data tool (http://data.fractracker.org) during the training, you must be registered with the data tool. It is free to register, but please do this online as soon as possible. If you run into problems registering for the tool please contact: support(a)rhizalabs.com <mailto:support@rhizalabs.com>. In addition to registering for the data tool online, please also accept or decline this invitation in a return email to me at slm75(a)pitt.edu <mailto:slm75@pitt.edu> as soon as possible. In that email, please let me know whether CHEC can distribute your contact information to all attendees of the training for networking purposes. Once we receive your RSVP we will send you a confirmation email with more details about the training. Best, Samantha -Samantha Malone, MPH, CPH- Communications Specialist & Doctoral Student Center for Healthy Environments & Communities University of Pittsburgh Graduate School of Public Health Office: 412-624-9379 100 Technology Dr. Suite 553 BRIDG Pittsburgh, PA 15219-3130 slm75(a)pitt.edu <mailto:slm75@pitt.edu> | samanthamalone119(a)gmail.com <mailto:samanthamalone119@gmail.com> | www.chec.pitt.edu

1 0

Fwd: News Data Highlights Role of Forests in Fight Against Climate Change
by James Kotcon 17 Oct '10

17 Oct '10

See attached report on carbon storage in National Forests. JBK

1 0

80-PAGE EPA DECISION ON SPRUCE NO. 1 - PROPOSING TO BLOCK 2200+ ACRE MOUNTAIN TOP REMOVAL PROJECT IN LOGAN COUNTY
by William V. DePaulo, Esq. 17 Oct '10

17 Oct '10

For any who have not yet had access to the lengthy EPA decision document, it is attached. It is certain to be the subject of important litigation in the US District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia.

1 0

Fwd: [GW-ACT-LEADERS] National Solar Jobs Census 2010
by James Kotcon 14 Oct '10

14 Oct '10

WOW!!!! Can we get copies of this report to our legislators? JBK >>> Edward Mainland <emainland(a)COMCAST.NET> 10/14/2010 3:07 PM >>> National Solar Jobs Census 2010 This is the most thorough, up-to-date job survey on the US solar industry, with data for every state. Nationally, solar energy provides 93,000 jobs in 2010 and is expected to grow another 24,000 jobs by August 2011. By comparison, coal mining employed 86,859 workers in 2008, a nearly 10-fold job reduction since 1920, even though we use far more coal today than in 1920. Coal supplies nearly half the nation’s electricity while solar energy provides much less than 1% of electric power and hot water. Employment in the California solar industry is forecast to grow about 4500 new jobs over the next year, increasing from 17,352 to 21,804. By comparison, fossil-fuel power generation is expected to grow only 210 new jobs in California, from 13,854 to 14,055. Fossil fuel is used to generate 60% the state’s electric power, while solar energy provides less than 1% of electricity and hot water. Link to download report: http://www.greenlmi.com/resources/ Final+TSF+National+Solar+Jobs+Census+2010+Web+Version.pdf+2.zip - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - To unsubscribe from the CONS-SPST-GLOBALWARM-CHAIRS list, send any message to: CONS-SPST-GLOBALWARM-CHAIRS-signoff-request(a)LISTS.SIERRACLUB.ORG Check out our Listserv Lists support site for more information: http://www.sierraclub.org/lists/faq.asp

1 0

GOOGLE OFFSHORE WIND PROJECT COULD OBVIATE NEED FOR BOTH TRAIL AND PATH
by William V. DePaulo, Esq. 12 Oct '10

12 Oct '10

[image: The New York Times] <http://www.nytimes.com/> ------------------------------ October 12, 2010 Offshore Wind Power Line Wins Praise, and Backing By MATTHEW L. WALD<http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/w/matthew_l_wald…> WASHINGTON — Google<http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/business/companies/google_inc/index.html…>and a New York financial firm have each agreed to invest heavily in a proposed $5 billion transmission backbone for future offshore wind farms<http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/w/wind_power/i…>along the Atlantic Seaboard that could ultimately transform the region’s electrical map. The 350-mile underwater spine, which could remove some critical obstacles to wind power development, has stirred excitement among investors, government officials and environmentalists who have been briefed on it. Google and Good Energies <http://www.goodenergies.com/>, an investment firm specializing in renewable energy, have each agreed to take 37.5 percent of the equity portion of the project. They are likely to bring in additional investors, which would reduce their stakes. If they hold on to their stakes, that would come to an initial investment of about $200 million apiece in the first phase of construction alone, said Robert L. Mitchell, the chief executive of Trans-Elect<http://www.trans-elect.com/contact.htm>, the Maryland-based transmission-line company that proposed the venture. Marubeni <http://www.marubeni.com/company/data.html>, a Japanese trading company, has taken a 10 percent stake. Trans-Elect said it hoped to begin construction in 2013. Several government officials praised the idea underlying the project as ingenious, while cautioning that they could not prejudge the specifics. “Conceptually it looks to me to be one of the most interesting transmission projects that I’ve ever seen walk through the door,” said Jon Wellinghoff, the chairman of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission<http://www.ferc.gov/>, which oversees interstate electricity transmission. “It provides a gathering point for offshore wind for multiple projects up and down the coast.” Industry experts called the plan promising, but warned that as a first-of-a-kind effort, it was bound to face bureaucratic delays and could run into unforeseen challenges, from technology problems to cost overruns. While several undersea electrical cables exist off the Atlantic Coast already, none has ever picked up power from generators along the way. The system’s backbone cable, with a capacity of 6,000 megawatts, equal to the output of five large nuclear reactors, would run in shallow trenches on the seabed in federal waters 15 to 20 miles offshore, from northern New Jersey to Norfolk, Va. The notion would be to harvest energy from turbines in an area where the wind is strong but the hulking towers would barely be visible. Trans-Elect estimated that construction would cost $5 billion, plus financing and permit fees. The $1.8 billion first phase, a 150-mile stretch from northern New Jersey to Rehoboth Beach, Del., could go into service by early 2016, it said. The rest would not be completed until 2021 at the earliest. Richard L. Needham, the director of Google’s green business operations group, called the plan “innovative and audacious.” “It is an opportunity to kick-start this industry and, long term, provide a way for the mid-Atlantic states to meet their renewable energy goals,” he said. Yet even before any wind farms were built, the cable would channel existing supplies of electricity from southern Virginia, where it is cheap, to northern New Jersey, where it is costly, bypassing one of the most congested parts of the North American electric grid while lowering energy costs for northern customers. Generating electricity from offshore wind is far more expensive than relying on coal<http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/c/coal/index.h…>, natural gas <http://www.nytimes.com/info/natural-gas/?inline=nyt-classifier>or even onshore wind. But energy experts anticipate a growing demand for the offshore turbines to meet state requirements for greater reliance on local renewable energy as a clean alternative to fossil fuels. Four connection points — in southern Virginia, Delaware, southern New Jersey and northern New Jersey — would simplify the job of bringing the energy onshore, involving fewer permit hurdles. In contrast to transmission lines on land, where a builder may have to deal with hundreds of property owners, this project would have to deal with a maximum of just four, and fewer than that in its first phase. Ultimately the system, known as the Atlantic Wind Connection, could make building a wind farm offshore far simpler and cheaper than it looks today, experts said. Environmentalists who have been briefed on the plan were enthusiastic. Melinda Pierce, the deputy director for national campaigns at the Sierra Club <http://www.sierraclub.org/>, said she had campaigned against proposed transmission lines that would carry coal-fired energy around the country, but would favor this one, with its promise of tapping the potential of offshore wind. “These kinds of audacious ideas might just be what we need to break through the wretched logjam,” she said. Projects like Cape Wind<http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/29/science/earth/29wind.html>, proposed for shallow waters just off Cape Cod in Massachusetts, met with fierce objections from residents who felt it would mar the ocean vista. But sponsors of the Trans-Elect project insist that the mid-Atlantic turbines would have less of a visual impact. The hurdles facing the project have more to do with administrative procedures than with engineering problems or its economic merit, several experts said. By the time the Interior Department<http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/i/interio…>could issue permits for such a line, for example, the federal subsidy program for wind will have expired in 2012, said Willett M. Kempton<http://www.ceoe.udel.edu/people/profile.aspx?willett>, a professor at the School of Marine Science and Policy at the University of Delaware<http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/u/univers…>and the author of several papers on offshore wind. Another is that PJM Interconnection <http://www.pjm.com/home.aspx>, the regional electricity group that would have to approve the project and assess its member utilities for the cost, has no integrated procedure for calculating the value of all three tasks the line would accomplish — hooking up new power generation, reducing congestion on the grid and improving reliability. And elected officials in Virginia have in the past opposed transmission proposals that would tend to average out pricing across the mid-Atlantic states, possibly raising their constituents’ costs. But the lure of Atlantic wind is very strong. The Atlantic Ocean is relatively shallow even tens of miles from shore, unlike the Pacific, where the sea floor drops away steeply. Construction is also difficult on the Great Lakes because their waters are deep and they freeze, raising the prospect of moving ice sheets that could damage a tower. Nearly all of the East Coast governors, Republican and Democratic, have spoken enthusiastically about coastal wind and have fought proposals for transmission lines from the other likely wind source, the Great Plains. “From Massachusetts down to Virginia, the governors have signed appeals to the Senate not to do anything that would lead to a high-voltage grid that would blanket the country and bring in wind from the Dakotas,” said James J. Hoecker <http://www.huschblackwell.com/james-hoecker/>, a former chairman of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission<http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/f/federal…>, who now is part of a nonprofit group that represents transmission owners. He described an Atlantic transmission backbone as “a necessary piece of what the Eastern governors have been talking about in terms of taking advantage of offshore wind.” So far only one offshore wind project, Bluewater Wind off Delaware, has sought permission to build in federal waters. The company is seeking federal loan guarantees to build 293 to 450 megawatts of capacity, but the timing of construction remains uncertain. Executives with that project said the Atlantic backbone was an interesting idea, in part because it would foster development of a supply chain for the specialized parts needed for offshore wind. Interior Secretary Ken Salazar<http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/s/ken_salazar/in…>, whose agency would have to sign off on the project, has spoken approvingly of wind energy and talked about the possibility of an offshore “backbone.” In a speech this month, he emphasized that the federal waters were “controlled by the secretary,” meaning him. Within three miles of the shore, control is wielded by the state. Nonetheless, if the offshore wind farms are built on a vast scale, the project’s sponsors say, a backbone with just four connection points could expedite the approval process. In fact, if successful, the transmission spine would reduce the regulatory burden on subsequent projects, said Mr. Mitchell, the Trans-Elect chief executive. Mr. Kempton of the University of Delaware and Mr. Wellinghoff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission said the backbone would offer another plus: reducing one of wind power’s big problems, variability of output. “Along the U.S. Atlantic seaboard, we tend to have storm tracks that move along the coast and somewhat offshore,” Mr. Kempton said. If storm winds were blowing on Friday off Virginia, they might be off Delaware by Saturday and off New Jersey by Sunday, he noted. Yet the long spine would ensure that the amount of energy coming ashore held roughly constant. Wind energy becomes more valuable when it is more predictable; if predictable enough, it could replace some land-based generation altogether, Mr. Kempton said. But the economics remain uncertain, he warned, For now, he said, the biggest impediment may be that the market price of offshore wind energy is about 50 percent higher than that of energy generated on land. With a change in market conditions — an increase in the price of natural gas, for example, or the adoption of a tax on emissions of carbon dioxide from coal- or gas-generated electricity — that could change, he said.

2 1

Geothermal power in WV!
by Jonathan Rosenbaum 11 Oct '10

11 Oct '10

This is an interesting story: http://wboy.com/story.cfm?func=viewstory&storyid=87518 <http://wboy.com/story.cfm?func=viewstory&storyid=87518> "If a geothermal well were to be drilled in West Virginia, it would use the same drilling rigs for drilling on Marcellus shale, as well," Anderson said. "In W.Va., the main difference is is it would be deeper to access higher temperatures. -Jonathan

1 1

Fwd: Sierra Club nominating petition
by Jonathan Rosenbaum 11 Oct '10

11 Oct '10

What do people think about this? I know that #1, #2, #4 are true. Does anyone know if #3 is true? http://connect.sierraclub.org/post/Groups/Welcome_Michael_Brune/blog/watch_… -Jonathan -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Sierra Club nominating petition Date: Sat, 9 Oct 2010 22:58:48 -0400 From: Robert Jereski <mutualaid(a)earthlink.net> October 10, 2010 Dear Fellow Sierrans I have learned that an acquaintance of mine, the dedicated environmentalist and long-time member of the Sierra Club, Frank Morris, is running as a petition candidate for the national Sierra Club Board of Directors for 2011. I am delighted as I know that Frank would add much needed energy and vision to the work of the BoD. He is running as a petition candidate for the national board, because he is concerned with the direction of the national Sierra Club, including the following facts: 1. Sierra Club’s former leader Carl Pope has publicly supported the “Picken’s Plan”. T Boone Pickens is an oil and natural gas billionaire, who in 2004 undermined the Sierra Club’s endorsed Presidential candidate John Kerry by funding the Swift Boat Campaign. The Picken’s Plan is a pro-gas (fossil fuel) plan. 2. In one of his first public acts as new Sierra Club director, Michael Brune was on Cramer’s Mad Money advocating the purchase of natural gas stocks. Exxon Mobil recently purchased leading natural gas provider XTO energy. Does Mr. Brune now advocate owning Exxon Mobil as an environmental investment? 3. National Sierra Club Staffers and national board members, clearly and definitively, “advised “ NYS Sierrans against legislatively advocating for a ban on “Fracking” for natural gas in NYS. Fracking is a process, presently absolved from multiple federal environmental statutes including the Clean Air and Clean Water acts, where in chemically infused sand and water is used to “frack” or break, shale stone and release natural gas. 4. Sierra Club is now in the products endorsement business, and has sold its endorsement to Clorox and Coca Cola to support their “green” products. Frank Morris believes that innovative financing like PACE bonds, and a truly renewable energy infrastructure based on sun, wind, wave, efficiency, conservation, smart grid, back up battery power, and geothermal are available now, but these breakthroughs are being obfuscated by the club’s decision to support natural gas as an open ended “transition” fuel. Morris needs to collect 250 signatures from active Sierrans (petition attached). While the national board is always elected by the membership, there is a nominating committee that nominates members that play nice… That’s why Morris has to petition to allow members a real choice when elections are held early next year. There are 3 ways for Sierrans to complete this petition: Print, Sign, and snail mail to Frank Morris, 40 Exchange Place Suite 2010 NY NY 10005 Sign, scan, and email to fm(a)ecologicadvisors.us <mailto:fm@ecologicadvisors.us> Sign, print and fax to 1 206 984 4328 Frank is presently a member of the NYS (Atlantic Chapter) Sierra Club Executive Committee, and former Chairperson of Long Island Sierra Club 2007-2009. Please forward to other Sierrans that may be interested in supporting a grassroots, petition candidate beholden only to the interests of the club membership. Robert Jereski New York City Sierra Club member

4 4

Stimulating promotional "white paper" from manufacturer of smart grid equip - the pitch: avoid capital cost of new generation and transmission by efficiency.
by William V. DePaulo, Esq. 11 Oct '10

11 Oct '10

EXCERPT FROM INTRO, COMPLETE PAPER ATTACHED. The world has a huge appetite for electric energy, consuming thousands of billions of kilowatt-hours (kWh) annually, a figure that continues to climb as more countries become industrialized. The world’s electric consumption has increased by about 3.1 percent annually between 1980 and 20061), and is expected to grow to 33,300 billion kWh by 2030). The world’s electricity consumption for 2008 was 16,790 billion kWh so by 2030 the world demand for electricity is expected to have almost doubled. Currently a significant amount (about 10 percent) of electric energy produced by power plants is lost during transmission and distribution to consumers. About 40 percent of this total loss occurs on the distribution network. In 2006 alone, the total energy losses and distribution losses were about 1,638 billion and 655 billion kWh, respectively. *A modest 10 percent reduction in distribution losses would, therefore, save about 65 billion kWh of electricity. That’s more electricity than Switzerland’s 7.5 million people consumed in 2008 and equates to 39 million metric tons of CO2 emissions from coal-fired power generation .* As the demand for electricity grows, new power plants will have to be built to meet the highest peak demand with additional capacity to cover unforeseen events. The peak demand in a system usually lasts less than 5 percent of the time (i.e, just a few hundred hours a year). This means that some power plants are only needed during the peak load hours and their potential is utilized relatively infrequently. By active demand management on the distribution system, through demand response and VVO, the peak demand on the whole electric grid can be reduced. This eliminates the need for expensive capital expenditure on the distribution, transmission, and the generation systems. Even very modest reductions in peak demand would yield huge economic savings. For the United States in 2008, for example, the non-coincidental peak demand (i.e, the separate peak demands made on the electrical system recorded at different times of the day) was about 790 GW. *With every 1 percent reduction in the peak demand there would be a reduced need to build a 7,900 MW power plant.*

1 0

News from WVSORO
by Jonathan Rosenbaum 08 Oct '10

08 Oct '10

http://marcellus-wv.com/news/wv-soro-win-ruling-in-well-spacing-case-favors… http://marcellus-wv.com/news/sierra-club-launches-campaign-to-regulate-marc… -Jonathan

1 0

Re: [EC] [fom] Re: Gazette Poll
by Bob Kincaid 08 Oct '10

08 Oct '10

To my way of thinking, that's not very astute. Unlimited wealth is NEVER easy to defeat. Unlimited wealth coupled to unlimited Citizens United money is all but impossible to remove from office, once entrenched. There's no hog harder to move than the one's already go front AND back feet in the trough. Bob On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 3:02 PM, Beth Little <blittle(a)citynet.net> wrote: > A politically astute friend of mine is voting for Raece on the premise > that he will be easier to defeat in a future election. > > ------------------------------ > *From:* ec-bounces(a)osenergy.org [mailto:ec-bounces@osenergy.org] *On > Behalf Of *Jim Sconyers > *Sent:* Thursday, October 07, 2010 12:52 PM > *To:* Harvard; Bob Kincaid > *Cc:* Clarissa Matthews; George rutherford; Theresa Chiotos; Blair > Nomination List Serve; All of FOM list; Pearl Reardon; Lyn Widmyer; Sally > Fitzgerald; Robbie Glenn; Lynn Yellot; Tyler Oyler; John Maxey; Barbara A. > Humes; Terry Thorson; Jenny Allen; ec(a)osenergy.org; Ed Snyder > *Subject:* Re: [EC] [fom] Re: Gazette Poll > > Or is this an election where King Coal wins regardless of which party, > Dem or Rep? Both kiss His ass feverishly. > > Jim Sconyers > jim_scon(a)yahoo.com > 304.698.9628 > > Remember: Mother Nature bats last. > > > ------------------------------ > *From:* Harvard <Harvard(a)boone.net> > *To:* Bob Kincaid <bobkincaid(a)gmail.com> > *Cc:* Clarissa Matthews <cmathews(a)shepherd.edu>; George rutherford < > gruther1(a)msn.com>; Theresa Chiotos <theresa(a)radlib.com>; Blair Nomination > List Serve <bmg(a)lists.berkeley.edu>; Lynn Yellot <lyellot(a)direcway.com>; > Pearl Reardon <hugorance(a)comcast.net>; Lyn Widmyer <lynwidmyer(a)gmail.com>; > Sally Fitzgerald <fitzwrt(a)comcast.net>; Terry Thorson < > tkthorson(a)comcast.net>; All of FOM list <fom(a)lists.riseup.net>; Tyler > Oyler <thegreatrepublic(a)hotmail.com>; John Maxey <maxey(a)ddi.radlib.com>; > Barbara A. Humes <bhumes1(a)comcast.net>; Robbie Glenn < > rglenn51989(a)gmail.com>; Jenny Allen <jbeallen(a)earthlink.net>; > ec(a)osenergy.org; Ed Snyder <esnyder(a)shepherd.edu> > *Sent:* Thu, October 7, 2010 9:32:54 AM > *Subject:* Re: [fom] Re: Gazette Poll > > Hear! Hear! I like it. Go Bob. Harvard > > > At 04:57 PM 10/6/2010, Bob Kincaid wrote: > > Personally, I think there IS a great deal of disenchantment w/ Manchin > (and, by extension, w/ Raese). > > > > Hopefully, I'll have an OpEd coming out in the Gazette pointing up that > lack of enthusiasm for both candidates, and pointing out the alternative. > > > > Again, personally, I think Manchin is so stuffed-to-popping with his own > hubris that it doesn't even dawn on him that he's alienated a significant > portion of the Democratic voting base via his sycophantic devotion to Big > Poison. I don't think it dawns on Rahall, either, for that matter. > > > > As Hunter Thompson once noted, "Big darkness, soon come." This may be > one race where coal can't keep the lights on for either candidate. > > > > Bob > > > > > > > > On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 11:55 AM, Harvard <<mailto:Harvard@boone.net> > Harvard(a)boone.net> wrote: > > Regina- I'm surprised to see the 3rd party vote up at 44%. There must be > a lot of unhappiness with Manchin and the R. Or we are loading up the > voting. Since the question was asked in the hypothetical, I voted. Harvard > > > > > > > > At 11:27 AM 10/6/2010, Regina Hendrix wrote: > > West Virginians: > > > > Please go to <<http://www.wvgazette.com/>http://www.wvgazette.com/> > http://www.wvgazette.com/ > > > > On the lefthand side scroll down to the survey question and vote for 3rd > party representation in WV. Ken Hechler and Larry Gibson have called this > to my attention and we need some votes in favor of 3rd parties. > > > > Regina Hendrix > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > "A normal person, functioning well on the upper levels of a prosperous, > industrialized society, can hardly hear his conscience at all." -Kurt > Vonnegut > > > > -- "A normal person, functioning well on the upper levels of a prosperous, industrialized society, can hardly hear his conscience at all." -Kurt Vonnegut

3 2

Fwd: Fw: DAILY UPDATE 8 October 2010. News of interest to Mon river watershed denizens.
by James Kotcon 08 Oct '10

08 Oct '10

On average, 84 % of trucks received citations, and 18 % were in such bad shape that state Police took them off the road immediately. JBK 208 trucks out of service after safety enforcement effort 10/8/2010 3:34 AM State police placed 208 trucks out of service during a three-day enforcement effort that focused on commercial vehicles hauling wastewater from Marcellus Shale natural gas drilling operations in the state, Commissioner Frank E. Pawlowski announced today. "Pennsylvania is experiencing heavy truck traffic in areas where Marcellus Shale natural gas drilling operations are taking place, particularly in Bradford, Clearfield, Susquehanna, Tioga and Washington counties," Pawlowski said. "The process of hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, requires significant amounts of water to be delivered to the sites and later trucked away." Pawlowski said 140 of the vehicles placed out of service were trucks hauling waste water from the drilling operations. In total, 1,135 trucks were inspected during "Operation FracNET," which was conducted Sept. 27-29. In addition to placing vehicles out of service, state police also issued 959 citations and placed 64 drivers out of service. The most common problems involved faulty brakes, exterior lighting issues and hauling permit violations. In Troop B , which takes in Allegheny, Fayette, Greene and Washington counties, there were 343 inspections, 60 vehicles placed out of service and 168 citations. Copyright Observer Publishing Co.

1 0

Re: [EC] [fom] Re: Gazette Poll
by Harvard 07 Oct '10

07 Oct '10

Hear! Hear! I like it. Go Bob. Harvard At 04:57 PM 10/6/2010, Bob Kincaid wrote: >Personally, I think there IS a great deal of disenchantment w/ >Manchin (and, by extension, w/ Raese). > >Hopefully, I'll have an OpEd coming out in the Gazette pointing up >that lack of enthusiasm for both candidates, and pointing out the >alternative. > >Again, personally, I think Manchin is so stuffed-to-popping with his >own hubris that it doesn't even dawn on him that he's alienated a >significant portion of the Democratic voting base via his >sycophantic devotion to Big Poison. I don't think it dawns on >Rahall, either, for that matter. > >As Hunter Thompson once noted, "Big darkness, soon come." This may >be one race where coal can't keep the lights on for either candidate. > >Bob > > > >On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 11:55 AM, Harvard ><<mailto:Harvard@boone.net>Harvard(a)boone.net> wrote: >Regina- I'm surprised to see the 3rd party vote up at 44%. There >must be a lot of unhappiness with Manchin and the R. Or we are >loading up the voting. Since the question was asked in the >hypothetical, I voted. Harvard > > > >At 11:27 AM 10/6/2010, Regina Hendrix wrote: >West Virginians: > >Please go >to ><<http://www.wvgazette.com/>http://www.wvgazette.com/>http://www.wvgazette.com/ > >On the lefthand side scroll down to the survey question and vote for >3rd party representation in WV. Ken Hechler and Larry Gibson have >called this to my attention and we need some votes in favor of 3rd parties. > >Regina Hendrix > > > > > >-- >"A normal person, functioning well on the upper levels of a >prosperous, industrialized society, can hardly hear his conscience >at all." -Kurt Vonnegut

3 3

Gazette Poll
by Regina Hendrix 07 Oct '10

07 Oct '10

West Virginians: Please go to http://www.wvgazette.com/ On the lefthand side scroll down to the survey question and vote for 3rd party representation in WV. Ken Hechler and Larry Gibson have called this to my attention and we need some votes in favor of 3rd parties. Regina Hendrix

4 3

Re: [EC] WIND AND NOISE
by fmoose39＠hotmail.com 06 Oct '10

06 Oct '10

I live about 6 miles from 1 and 7 from another. I can hear them, see the lights, see the smoke, smell them sometimes, and when they start the scrubbed I can feel them. Maybe wind is bad but the ones I visited are not bad at the base but with acoustics bouncing off various items who know. Bottom line all forms of power have side effects someone may not want. Even solar will have major problems when expanded to utility scale. sent from my AT&T Smartphone by HTC ----- Reply message ----- From: "James Kotcon" <jkotcon(a)wvu.edu> Date: Wed, Oct 6, 2010 10:42 am Subject: [EC] WIND AND NOISE To: "Esq. William V. DePaulo" <william.depaulo(a)gmail.com>, "Energy Committee" <EC(a)osenergy.org> If only a coal-fired power plant were as quiet as a wind farm. JBK >>> "William V. DePaulo, Esq." <william.depaulo(a)gmail.com> 10/6/2010 8:51 AM >>> For Those Near, the Miserable Hum of Clean Energy By TOM ZELLER Jr.<http://topics.nytimes.com/topics/reference/timestopics/people/z/tom_jr_zell…> Published: October 5, 2010 “In the first 10 minutes, our jaws dropped to the ground,” Mr. Lindgren said. “Nobody in the area could believe it. They were so loud.” Now, the Lindgrens, along with a dozen or so neighbors living less than a mile <http://fiwn.org/> from the $15 million wind facility here, say the industrial whoosh-and-whoop of the 123-foot blades is making life in this otherwise tranquil corner of the island unbearable. They are among a small but growing number of families and homeowners across the country who say they have learned the hard way that wind power — a clean alternative to electricity from fossil fuels — is not without emissions of its own. Lawsuits and complaints about turbine noise, vibrations and subsequent lost property value have cropped up in Illinois, Texas, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Massachusetts, among other states. In one case in DeKalb County, Ill., at least 38 families have sued to have 100 turbines removed from a wind farm there. A judge rejected a motion to dismiss the case in June. Like the Lindgrens, many of the people complaining the loudest are reluctant converts to the antiwind movement. “The quality of life that we came here for was quiet,” Mrs. Lindgren said. “You don’t live in a place where you have to take an hour-and-15-minute ferry ride to live next to an industrial park. And that’s where we are right now.” The wind industry has long been dogged by a vocal minority bearing all manner of complaints about turbines, from routine claims that they ruin the look of pastoral landscapes to more elaborate allegations that they have direct physiological impacts like rapid heart beat, nausea and blurred vision caused by the ultra-low-frequency sound and vibrations from the machines. For the most extreme claims, there is little independent backing. Last year, the American Wind Energy Association, a trade group, along with its Canadian counterpart, assembled a panel of doctors and acoustical professionals to examine the potential health impacts of wind turbine noise. In a paper published in December, the panel concluded that “there is no evidence that the audible or sub-audible sounds emitted by wind turbines have any direct adverse physiological effects.” A separate study <http://eetd.lbl.gov/ea/ems/reports/lbnl-2829e.pdf>financed by the Energy Department concluded late last year that, in aggregate, property values were unaffected by nearby wind turbines. Numerous studies also suggest that not everyone will be bothered by turbine noise, and that much depends on the context into which the noise is introduced. A previously quiet setting like Vinalhaven is more likely to produce irritated neighbors than, say, a mixed-use suburban setting where ambient noise is already the norm. Of the 250 new wind farms that have come online in the United States over the last two years, about dozen or so have generated significant noise complaints, according to Jim Cummings, the founder of the Acoustic Ecology Institute <http://www.acousticecology.org/>, an online clearinghouse for information on sound-related environmental issues. In the Vinalhaven case, an audio consultant hired by the Maine Department of Environmental Protection determined last month that the 4.5-megawatt facility was, at least on one evening in mid-July when Mr. Lindgren collected sound data, in excess of the state’s nighttime sound limits. The developer of the project, Fox Island Wind <http://www.fo

2 1

WIND AND NOISE
by William V. DePaulo, Esq. 06 Oct '10

06 Oct '10

For Those Near, the Miserable Hum of Clean Energy By TOM ZELLER Jr.<http://topics.nytimes.com/topics/reference/timestopics/people/z/tom_jr_zell…> Published: October 5, 2010 “In the first 10 minutes, our jaws dropped to the ground,” Mr. Lindgren said. “Nobody in the area could believe it. They were so loud.” Now, the Lindgrens, along with a dozen or so neighbors living less than a mile <http://fiwn.org/> from the $15 million wind facility here, say the industrial whoosh-and-whoop of the 123-foot blades is making life in this otherwise tranquil corner of the island unbearable. They are among a small but growing number of families and homeowners across the country who say they have learned the hard way that wind power — a clean alternative to electricity from fossil fuels — is not without emissions of its own. Lawsuits and complaints about turbine noise, vibrations and subsequent lost property value have cropped up in Illinois, Texas, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Massachusetts, among other states. In one case in DeKalb County, Ill., at least 38 families have sued to have 100 turbines removed from a wind farm there. A judge rejected a motion to dismiss the case in June. Like the Lindgrens, many of the people complaining the loudest are reluctant converts to the antiwind movement. “The quality of life that we came here for was quiet,” Mrs. Lindgren said. “You don’t live in a place where you have to take an hour-and-15-minute ferry ride to live next to an industrial park. And that’s where we are right now.” The wind industry has long been dogged by a vocal minority bearing all manner of complaints about turbines, from routine claims that they ruin the look of pastoral landscapes to more elaborate allegations that they have direct physiological impacts like rapid heart beat, nausea and blurred vision caused by the ultra-low-frequency sound and vibrations from the machines. For the most extreme claims, there is little independent backing. Last year, the American Wind Energy Association, a trade group, along with its Canadian counterpart, assembled a panel of doctors and acoustical professionals to examine the potential health impacts of wind turbine noise. In a paper published in December, the panel concluded that “there is no evidence that the audible or sub-audible sounds emitted by wind turbines have any direct adverse physiological effects.” A separate study <http://eetd.lbl.gov/ea/ems/reports/lbnl-2829e.pdf>financed by the Energy Department concluded late last year that, in aggregate, property values were unaffected by nearby wind turbines. Numerous studies also suggest that not everyone will be bothered by turbine noise, and that much depends on the context into which the noise is introduced. A previously quiet setting like Vinalhaven is more likely to produce irritated neighbors than, say, a mixed-use suburban setting where ambient noise is already the norm. Of the 250 new wind farms that have come online in the United States over the last two years, about dozen or so have generated significant noise complaints, according to Jim Cummings, the founder of the Acoustic Ecology Institute <http://www.acousticecology.org/>, an online clearinghouse for information on sound-related environmental issues. In the Vinalhaven case, an audio consultant hired by the Maine Department of Environmental Protection determined last month that the 4.5-megawatt facility was, at least on one evening in mid-July when Mr. Lindgren collected sound data, in excess of the state’s nighttime sound limits. The developer of the project, Fox Island Wind <http://www.foxislandswind.com/>, has contested that finding, and negotiations with state regulators are continuing. In the moonlit woods behind a neighbor’s property on a recent evening, Mr. Lindgren, a retired software engineer, clenched a small flashlight between his teeth and wrestled with a tangle of cables and audio recording equipment he uses to collect sound samples for filing complaints. At times, the rustle of leaves was all that could be heard. But when the surface wind settled, a throbbing, vaguely jetlike sound cut through the nighttime air. “Right there,” Mr. Lindgren declared. “That would probably be out of compliance.” Maine, along with many other states, puts a general limit on nighttime noise at 45 decibels — roughly equivalent to the sound of a humming refrigerator. A normal conversation is in the range of 50 to 60 decibels. In almost all cases, it is not mechanical noise arising from the central gear box or nacelle of a turbine that residents react to, but rather the sound of the blades, which in modern turbines are mammoth steel appendages well over 100 feet long, as they slice through the air. Turbine noise can be controlled by reducing the rotational speed of the blades. But the turbines on Vinalhaven already operate that way after 7 p.m., and George Baker, the chief executive of Fox Island Wind — a for-profit arm of the island’s electricity co-operative — said that turning the turbines down came at an economic cost. “The more we do that, the higher goes the price of electricity on the island,” he said. A common refrain among homeowners grappling with sound issues, however, is that they were not accurately informed about the noise ahead of time. “They told us we wouldn’t hear it, or that it would be masked by the sound of the wind blowing through the trees,” said Sally Wylie, a former schoolteacher down the road from the Lindgrens. “I feel duped.” Similar conflicts are arising in Canada, Britain and other countries. An appeals court in Rennes, France, recently ordered an eight-turbine wind farm to shut down between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. so residents could get some sleep. Richard R. James, an acoustic expert hired by residents of Vinalhaven to help them quantify the noise problem, said there was a simpler solution: do not put the turbines so close to where people live. “It would seem to be time for the wind utility developers to rethink their plans for duplicating these errors and to focus on locating wind turbines in areas where there is a large buffer zone of about a mile and one-quarter between the turbines and people’s homes,” said Mr. James, the principal consultant with E-Coustic Solutions <http://www.e-coustic.com/>, based in Michigan. Vinalhaven’s wind farm enjoys support among most residents, from ardent supporters of all clean energy to those who simply say the turbines have reduced their power bills. Deckhands running the ferry sport turbine pins on their hats, and bumper stickers seen on the island declare “Spin, Baby, Spin.” “The majority of us like them,” said Jeannie Conway, who works at the island’s ferry office. But that is cold comfort for Mrs. Lindgren and her neighbors, who say their corner of the island will never be the same. “I remember the sound of silence so palpable, so merciless in its depths, that you could almost feel your heart stop in sympathy,” she said. “Now we are prisoners of sonic effluence. I grieve for the past.”

2 1

Buckle your seat belt.......
by William V. DePaulo, Esq. 05 Oct '10

05 Oct '10

[image: The New York Times] <http://www.nytimes.com/> ------------------------------ October 4, 2010 U.S. Military Orders Less Dependence on Fossil Fuels By ELISABETH ROSENTHAL<http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/r/elisabeth_rose…> With insurgents increasingly attacking the American fuel supply convoys<http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/04/world/asia/04pstan.html>that lumber across the Khyber Pass into Afghanistan<http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/international/countriesandterritories/af…>, the military is pushing aggressively to develop, test and deploy renewable energy to decrease its need to transport fossil fuels. Last week, a Marine company from California arrived in the rugged outback of Helmand Province bearing novel equipment: portable solar panels that fold up into boxes; energy-conserving lights; solar tent shields that provide shade and electricity; solar chargers for computers and communications equipment. The 150 Marines<http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/m/us_mari…>of Company I, Third Battalion, Fifth Marines, will be the first to take renewable technology into a battle zone, where the new equipment will replace diesel and kerosene-based fuels that would ordinarily generate power to run their encampment. Even as Congress has struggled unsuccessfully to pass an energy bill and many states have put renewable energy on hold because of the recession, the military this year has pushed rapidly forward. After a decade of waging wars in remote corners of the globe where fuel is not readily available, senior commanders have come to see overdependence on fossil fuel as a big liability, and renewable technologies — which have become more reliable and less expensive over the past few years — as providing a potential answer. These new types of renewable energy now account for only a small percentage of the power used by the armed forces, but military leaders plan to rapidly expand their use over the next decade. In Iraq and Afghanistan, the huge truck convoys that haul fuel to bases have been sitting ducks for enemy fighters — in the latest attack<http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/05/world/asia/05pstan.html>, oil tankers carrying fuel for NATO<http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/n/north_a…>troops in Afghanistan were set on fire in Rawalpindi, Pakistan, early Monday. In Iraq and Afghanistan, one Army study found<http://www.aepi.army.mil/docs/whatsnew/SMP_Casualty_Cost_Factors_Final1-09.…>, for every 24 fuel convoys that set out, one soldier or civilian engaged in fuel transport was killed. In the past three months, six Marines have been wounded guarding fuel runs in Afghanistan. “There are a lot of profound reasons for doing this, but for us at the core it’s practical,” said Ray Mabus, the Navy secretary<http://www.navy.mil/navydata/bios/navybio.asp?bioID=505Militarybiography>and a former ambassador to Saudi Arabia, who has said he wants 50 percent of the power for the Navy and Marines to come from renewable energy sources by 2020. That figure includes energy for bases as well as fuel for cars and ships. “Fossil fuel is the No. 1 thing we import to Afghanistan,” Mr. Mabus said, “and guarding that fuel is keeping the troops from doing what they were sent there to do, to fight or engage local people.” He and other experts also said that greater reliance on renewable energy improved national security, because fossil fuels often came from unstable regions and scarce supplies were a potential source of international conflict. Fossil fuel accounts for 30 to 80 percent of the load in convoys into Afghanistan, bringing costs as well as risk. While the military buys gas for just over $1 a gallon, getting that gallon to some forward operating bases costs $400. “We had a couple of tenuous supply lines across Pakistan that are costing us a heck of a lot, and they’re very dangerous,” said Gen. James T. Conway<http://www.defense.gov/bios/biographydetail.aspx?biographyid=114>, the commandant of the Marine Corps. Col. Robert Charette Jr., director of the Marine Corps Expeditionary Energy Office, said he was “cautiously optimistic” that Company I’s equipment would prove reliable and durable enough for military use, and that other Marine companies would be adopting renewable technology in the coming months, although there would probably always be a need to import fuel for some purposes. While setting national energy policy requires Congressional debates, military leaders can simply order the adoption of renewable energy. And the military has the buying power to create products and markets. That, in turn, may make renewable energy more practical and affordable for everyday uses, experts say<http://www.cna.org/research/2010/powering-americas-economy-energy-innovation>. Last year, the Navy introduced its first hybrid vessel, a Wasp class amphibious assault ship called the U.S.S. Makin Island<http://www.public.navy.mil/surfor/lhd8/Pages/default.aspx>, which at speeds under 10 knots runs on electricity rather than on fossil fuel, a shift resulting in greater efficiency that saved 900,000 gallons of fuel on its maiden voyage from Mississippi to San Diego, compared with a conventional ship its size, the Navy said. The Air Force will have its entire fleet certified to fly on biofuels<http://www.nytimes.com/info/biofuels/?inline=nyt-classifier>by 2011 and has already flown test flights using a 50-50 mix of plant-based biofuel and jet fuel; the Navy took its first delivery of fuel made from algae this summer. Biofuels can in theory be produced wherever the raw materials, like plants, are available, and could ultimately be made near battlefields. Concerns about the military’s dependence on fossil fuels in far-flung battlefields began in 2006 in Iraq, where Richard Zilmer, then a major general and the top American commander in western Iraq, sent an urgent cable to Washington suggesting that renewable technology could prevent loss of life. That request catalyzed new research<http://eti.c4ads.org/sites/default/files/DoD_Seeks_Alternative_Fuels.pdf>, but the pressure for immediate results magnified as the military shifted its focus to Afghanistan, a country with little available native fossil fuel and scarce electricity outside cities. Fuel destined for American troops in landlocked Afghanistan is shipped to Karachi, Pakistan, where it is loaded on convoys of 50 to 70 vehicles for transport to central bases. Smaller convoys branch out to the forward lines. The Marines’ new goal is to make the more peripheral sites sustain themselves with the kind of renewable technology carried by Company I, since solar electricity can be generated right on the battlefield. There are similar tactical advantages to using renewable fuel for planes and building hybrid ships. “Every time you cut a ship away from the need to visit an oiler — a fuel supply ship — you create an advantage,” said Mr. Mabus, noting that the Navy had pioneered previous energy transformations in the United States, from sail power to coal power in the 19th century, as well as from coal to oil and oil to nuclear power in the 20th century. The cost calculation is also favorable. The renewable technology that will power Company I costs about $50,000 to $70,000; a single diesel generator costs several thousand dollars. But when it costs hundreds of dollars to get each gallon of traditional fuel to base camps in Afghanistan, the investment is quickly defrayed. Because the military has moved into renewable energy so rapidly, much of the technology currently being used is commercially available or has been adapted for the battlefield from readily available civilian models. This spring, the military invited commercial manufacturers to demonstrate products that might be useful on the battlefield. A small number were selected for further testing. The goal was to see, for example, if cooling systems could handle the 120 degree temperatures often seen in current war zones or if embedded solar panels would make tents more visible to enemy radar. This summer, renewable technologies proved capable of powering computers, residences and most equipment for more than a week at a test base in the Mojave Desert — though not enough to operate the most sophisticated surveillance systems. Much more is in the testing stages: one experimental cooling system uses a pipe burrowed into the cool earth eight feet underground that vents into tents; a solar fan on the tent roof evacuates the hot air and draws cool air from underground. The Marines are exploring solar-powered water purification systems and looking into the possibility of building a small-scale, truck-based biofuel plant that could transform local crops — like illegal poppies — into fuel. “If the Navy comes knocking, they will build it,” Mr. Mabus said. “The price will come down and the infrastructure will be created.”

1 0

(no subject)
by Duane330＠aol.com 04 Oct '10

04 Oct '10

UPPER MONONGAHELA RIVER ASSOCIATION WV/PA MONONGAHELA AREA WATERSHEDS COMPACT Date: October 4, 2010 Governor Joe Manchin III State of West Virginia 1900 Kanawha Boulevard, E. Charleston, WV 25305 RE: Environmental and Socio-Economic Impacts of Marcellus Shale Gas Development Urgent action is needed to protect the watersheds of West Virginia. A similar situation as severe exists in southwestern and northeastern Pennsylvania. Hundreds of thousands of acres in these States are in various stages of exploration and development in the Marcellus shale for natural gas extraction. The attention that this overall situation has received, or is planned to receive, by State governments is inadequate in the view of more than twenty watershed groups and conservation organizations. And, the program review in the Office of Oil and Gas as well as the Panel recently selected by WV-DEP to study the situation are not an adequate response given the magnitude of the problems at issue. The Morgantown Dominion Post newspaper was quick to see the substantive bias in affiliations of the Panel members (6 of 9 represent the gas industry under review), as described in the enclosed Editorial. There may well be some changes in State laws needed by the industry; however, the issues faced by the common citizens are extensive and severe and not appropriately represented by the panel. Nor are these issues being adequately addressed by the two State governments, given current practices or plans. The Editorial states “the fox has been put in charge of the hen house.” Watershed and conservation groups are explicitly and conspicuously absent from the Panel. The WV/PA Monongahela Area Watersheds Compact was formed on August 17, 2010, with a second meeting taking place in Morgantown on September 22nd. This new Watershed Compact includes the Upper Monongahela River Association (UMRA) and other groups that have operated for many years. UMRA has coordinated monthly meetings on these gas well drilling issues for two years with interested and affected parties including industry and government representatives. Some eight Resolutions have been approved by this Compact to date, four at each meeting. These eight Resolutions are attached to this letter for your use. We believe these represent an essential response, in part, to the current issues involving Marcellus shale development and extraction in West Virginia. We seek the implementation of remedies for the current problems in the Monongahela River watershed, the current problems in Wetzel and Marshall counties, and the projected problems on the horizon for our State and for Pennsylvania relative to natural gas exploration, development, production and transmission particularly in the Marcellus shale. We are convinced that the long-term condition of our Region is at significant risk at this time, so remedies are needed as soon as they can possibly be put into effect. We seek (1) a meeting with you, (2) a review and adjustment of the composition of the Marcellus Panel recently appointed, and (3) positions for conservation groups such as ours on the various Advisory Committees within State government that deal with the diverse aspects of water resources, water quality, sediment prevention and erosion control. Further, we request that our Compact or some of its members be represented on the new Panel and on the appropriate Advisory Committees. We also feel it is reasonable to ask for a response from your Office regarding the eight resolutions attached. Otherwise, the input and participation of the public including our diverse watershed groups and conservation organizations will not be fairly and appropriately served and citizens of our region will be further harmed and under represented. Respectfully submitted, Duane G. Nichols, Compact Co-Chair Barry G. Pallay, Compact Co-Chair and President of CLEAR and Vice President of UMRA WV/PA Monongahela Area Watersheds Compact Upper Monongahela River Association 330 Dream Catcher Circle 109 Broad Street, P. O. Box 519 Morgantown, WV 26508 Granville WV 26534-0519 cc: WV/PA Watershed Groups, US-EPA, US-ACE, USGS, WV-DEP, Gov. Rendell, PA-DEP. Attachments (2). Editorial and Resolutions. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ATTACHEMENT 1 Morgantown Dominion Post, Page 10-A, Monday, September 27, 2010: EDITORIAL: “Task force far too up to its task” “Lopsided appointments of gas industry reps cause for concern about drilling” Talk about putting the fox in charge of the henhouse. And in this case, it’ s a hungry fox to boot. At least that’s the perception we got from last week’s appointment of six natural gas company representatives to a new nine-member task force to help the state better regulate the industry. We realize that this panel, appointed by the state’s director of the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), will not actually be writing the regulations and legislation on how to regulate this industry. Or at least that’s what we are being led to believe. The DEP’s staff will be charged with that task, while this panel will attempt to reach a consensus on the issues. That might not be too hard to do, considering the only real differences of opinion will come from the lone representative of the West Virginia Environmental Council and an advocate for landowner’s rights. The ninth member of the panel is a coal industry lawyer, who represents the West Virginia Coal Association. No one should overestimate the scope and authority of this task force, however, we can assure the DEP and this group that we’ll be watching. Clearly, the state needs to determine how to better regulate our booming natural gas industry. We also understand the logic of considering a dual regulatory system — one for conventional gas drilling and another for the burgeoning Marcellus shale drilling. And no one is questioning why there should be industry representatives on this task force. However, the number of appointments of executives and lawyers for this industry is weighed far too heavily in the industry’s favor. With all due respect to these industry appointees, some who have served in public regulatory roles, too, these appointments raise eyebrows. Yes, they bring diverse outlooks, technical knowledge and pragmatic advice to the table, but they also bring their industry’s primary goal to the head of the well: Their profit margin. No one here is opposed to that, but regulation of this industry must balance a return on investment with reasonable regulation and oversight. Otherwise, these drilling operations may pose dangerous risks to our state’ s aquifer, our waterways, our roads, our landscape and landowners’ rights. This panel’s lopsided make-up leads us to believe there’s reason to fear all of that. We urge the DEP to review the composition of this panel and even appoint someone who isn’t a stakeholder to this task force before the chickens come home to roost. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> RESOLUTIONS [ADOPTED AUGUST 17TH AND SEPTEMBER 22ND 2010] WV/PA MONONGAHELA AREA WATERSHEDS COMPACT We recognize the value of mineral extraction, including coal, oil, gas and water, in the Monongahela basin and adjoining areas, when conducted responsibly. But, the current and projected levels of Marcellus shale drilling for natural gas production and the manner in which it is being conducted poses very serious problems for most all of West Virginia and Pennsylvania. RESOLUTIONS, FIRST WV-PA WATERSHED MEETING, AUGUST 17, 2010 1. The West Virginia and Pennsylvania DEPs must enact commensurate and enforceable standards and rules/regulations and adequate penalties to protect regional water resources from potential hazards caused by mineral extraction and oil and gas drilling, including but not limited to sedimentation, water withdrawal, organic and inorganic chemicals and thermal effects. 2. The West Virginia and Pennsylvania DEPs must hire an additional and adequate number of inspectors and other staff to effectively monitor and enforce regulations governing mining and the oil and gas well industries. 3. The Upper Monongahela watershed groups advocate that closed-loop systems for containment of blowback water be required at all new construction gas well drilling sites rather than the open pit system of containment. 4. If open pits exist or are absolutely necessary, these should provide sufficient natural or geosynthetic protection to both contain the blowback water and to prevent its percolation into the soil or groundwater beneath the pit should the containment liner become ruptured. Further, we advocate the usage of regulations typically found in state dam safety statutes in order to ensure that blowback pits are properly sited and constructed, and that emergency contact/notification procedures are implemented when an accident involving the release of blowback water occurs. RESOLUTIONS, SECOND WV/PA MONONGAHELA AREA WATERSHEDS COMPACT 5.West Virginia and Pennsylvania rivers and streams frequently experience very low flows because of reduced rainfall. At these critically low flows, water withdrawals for Marcellus Shale gas well activities threaten aquatic life in many streams. And, more generally, the waters of both States must be shared among the diverse uses from agriculture to industry to recreation to domestic use. This includes both surface and sub-surface water resources. Therefore, the withdrawal of water from any source for high volume applications as Marcellus Shale drilling, fracking or other operations must be regulated and require permits from an appropriate State agency. 6. The Program Review in the Office of Oil and Gas of the WV DEP is clearly useful with a projected Final Report date of December 2010. However, this Review of oil and gas exploration and production activities in West Virginia is inadequate in and of itself. The issues and problems of this industry sector are huge and diverse and they directly involve many other agencies of State government; and, these problems are interrelated to the other extractive industries. A state-wide review is urgently needed, one that is directed from the Office of the Governor. And, a Special Session of the WV Legislature would appear to be called for to address these problems and issues that include the protection of our water, air and land as well as our roads, our scenic values and quality of life. Each extractive activity should be responsible for the cost of all the environmental and socio-economic impacts resulting from its activities, taking into account both short and long-term impacts. 7. The issues and problems affecting WV and PA as a result of the current and projected levels of activity for coal mining and natural gas production are of an inter-state or national character. Here in northern WV and southwestern PA we have many such operations that cross state lines. One major issue is the drinking water for approximately one million people in southwestern Pennsylvania that comes from the Monongahela River, which drains most of northcentral WV. This and the other streams will likely increase in their total loads of pollutants. Therefore, the US Environmental Protection Agency in conjunction with the US Army Corps of Engineers, the US Geological Survey and other federal agencies should prepare a “guidance document” and respond quickly to the water and aqueous waste problems of the extractive industries now affecting New York, Pennsylvania, West Virginia and other States. 8. An Interagency Task Force study within the United States government is needed to examine the existing problems posed by the extractive industries in the United States. This would aim to establish a viable long range Planning Office that can anticipate many of the problems such as those posed by Marcellus Shale gas exploration and production. The focus would be on environment impacts and socio-economic dislocations such as public infrastructure damages and domestic disturbance problems. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> NOTE: The above Resolutions were adopted by consensus at the First and Second WV-PA Watershed Group Meetings on August 17, 2010 and September 22, 2010 at the Morgantown Airport. These meetings were organized and conducted by the representatives of various watershed and conservation groups in cooperation with the Upper Monongahela River Association (_www.uppermon.org_ (http://www.uppermon.org) ). >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

1 0

IMPORTANT - [MVCAC] GASLAND movie screenings: Oct 3, 11 & 12
by Jonathan Rosenbaum 04 Oct '10

04 Oct '10

Kitty, You are right, I am MVCAC's list manager, however, thanks to you I just looked at the most recent messages, so thanks! :) I am copying the WVSC on this great news. *GASLAND - Tuesday, October 12th, College of Law, WVU, off University Ave., Morgantown, WV. Time: 6:30 pm. "Green Tables" for information distribution. [Questions: justpeace(a)yahoo.com <mailto:justpeace@yahoo.com> ]* WVSC & LWV: We need to get the message out to all our members via email or phone calls, also mention it to them at Candidate Forums: http://www.lwvwv.org/category/league-of-women-votes-of-wv/candidate-forums/ WVSC: Alert via HELEN? -Jonathan On 10/1/2010 2:21 PM, Kitty Lozier wrote: > jonathan, i am guessing you know about this. how shall we work this > into our league? > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: *John Lozier* <j.lozier(a)mondems.com <mailto:j.lozier@mondems.com>> > Date: Fri, Oct 1, 2010 at 1:13 PM > Subject: Fwd: [MVCAC] GASLAND movie screenings: Oct 3, 11 & 12 > To: Kitty Lozier <clozier(a)gmail.com <mailto:clozier@gmail.com>>, > Catherine Tall <cvtall(a)gmail.com <mailto:cvtall@gmail.com>> > > > fyi > > Begin forwarded message: > >> *From: *"Barbara Howe" <bhowe(a)wvu.edu <mailto:bhowe@wvu.edu>> >> *Date: *October 1, 2010 11:35:26 AM EDT >> *To: *"John Lozier" <j.lozier(a)mondems.com <mailto:j.lozier@mondems.com>> >> *Subject: **Fwd: [MVCAC] GASLAND movie screenings: Oct 3, 11 & 12* >> >> Hi, John, >> Could you share this with Kitty? I don't have her email - I had >> heard the League of Women Voters was thinking about bringing GASLAND >> to Morgantown and wanted her to know that it is coming on the 12th. >> Thanks, >> Barb >> >> *From: *Duane330(a)aol.com <mailto:Duane330@aol.com> >> *Date: *September 30, 2010 7:51:43 PM EDT >> *To: *CLEAR(a)cheat.org <mailto:CLEAR@cheat.org>, mvcac(a)cheat.org >> <mailto:mvcac@cheat.org> >> *Subject: **[MVCAC] GASLAND movie screenings: Oct 3, 11 & 12* >> >> >> *_GASLAND Movie Showings: No admission charges at any of the three >> locations below._* >> *Sunday, October 3rd, Uniontown State Theater, 37 East Main Street, >> Uniontown, PA. * >> *Two showings: 1 pm and 3 pm.* >> *Monday, October 11th, Ohio County Public Library, 5 16th St, >> Wheeling, WV 26003. >> (304) 232-0244. One Showing: Noon.* >> *Tuesday, October 12th, College of Law, WVU, off University Ave., >> Morgantown, WV. Time: 6:30 pm. "Green Tables" for information >> distribution. [Questions: justpeace(a)yahoo.com >> <mailto:justpeace@yahoo.com> ]* >> *>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>* >> *For Background Information See: http://gaslandthemovie.com/* >> *>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>* >> >> GasLands-- The Documentary. 1 hour and 43 minutes. >> >> GasLand Exposes The Dangers Of Natural Gas Drilling Called Hydraulic >> Fracturing - The largest domestic natural gas drilling boom in >> history has swept across the United States. The Halliburton-developed >> drilling technology of “fracking” or hydraulic fracturing has >> unlocked a “Saudia Arabia of natural gas” just beneath us. But is >> fracking safe? When filmmaker Josh Fox is asked to lease his land for >> drilling, he embarks on a cross-country odyssey uncovering a trail of >> secrets, lies and contamination. A recently drilled nearby >> Pennsylvania town reports that residents are able to light their >> drinking water on fire. This is just one of the many absurd and >> astonishing revelations of a new country called GASLAND. Part verite >> travelogue, part expose, part mystery, part bluegrass banjo meltdown, >> part showdown. >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> NOTE: While not every detail reported in the movie is portrayed >> accurately, the issues covered and >> >> the information presented are much more than thought provoking and >> challenging. And, in my opinion, >> >> the alternative explanations that have been offered for some details >> also represent problems for our >> >> region, that is for the exploration, development, production and >> transmission of natural gas from the >> >> Marcellus shale formation. >> >> Duane G. Nichols, Co-Chair, WV/PA Monongahela Area >> Watersheds Compact. >> >> _______________________________________________ >> MVCAC mailing list >> MVCAC(a)cheat.org <mailto:MVCAC@cheat.org> >> http://cheat.org/mailman/listinfo/mvcac >> > > Organizing for America > */WVFirstCongressionalOFA/* > http://my.barackobama.com/page/group/WVFirstCongressionalOFA > John Lozier > Monongalia County Democratic Executive Committee District 2 - > Precincts 10, 13 and 16 > 345 Virginia Avenue - phone home: 304-599-8233 cell 304 276 5141 > */ > /* > > > > > > > >

6 5

Fwd: [MVCAC] FW: National Solar Tour in Morgantown!
by Jonathan Rosenbaum 01 Oct '10

01 Oct '10

-------- Original Message -------- Subject: [MVCAC] FW: National Solar Tour in Morgantown! Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2010 08:15:13 -0400 From: Wonderlin, William <wwonderlin(a)hsc.wvu.edu> To: mvcac(a)cheat.org <mvcac(a)cheat.org> (from Megan Nedzinski) Please see the follow message regarding an event this weekend that might be of potential interest. Hope to see you there! American Solar Energy Society (ASES) National Solar Tour nationalsolartour.org<http://nationalsolartour.org/ is coming to Morgantown! Saturday, October 2nd from 12 until 4pm. (and it's FREE!) Saturday, October 2, 2010, will be Morgantown’s second participation in the national solar tour. Any people interested can find out more information at www.morgantowngreenteam.org/iebg.html,<http://www.morgantowngreenteam.org/iebg.html,> www.eco-mod-structure.com<http://www.eco-mod-structure.com/>, or by calling John Garlow at 304-276-3655. Most locations will be open from noon until 4 pm, but look for yard signs that say OPEN HOUSE for the Solar Tour. Please help us spread the word by sharing this notice with potentially interested parties (please forward responsibly). Or by posting the attached flyer and informational brochure at your workplace, on community bulletin boards, or at other places to encourage interest and participation. A version appropriate for web posting is also attached for your use with web postings. Thanks so much and we look forward to seeing you Saturday! -- Megan M. Nedzinski, Architect, LEED AP NEDZINSKI DESIGN COLLABORATIVE, LLC collaborative | responsible | appropriate | DESIGN megannedzinski.com Sometimes you have to act as if acting will make a difference, even when you can't prove that it will. -Michael Pollan

1 0

Banks and MTR
by William V. DePaulo, Esq. 01 Oct '10

01 Oct '10

Throwing Debris at the Coal Industry Mountaintop Mining Gets Heated Ken Silverstein <http://www.energybiz.com/author/blog/ken-silverstein> | Sep 27, 2010 [image: Share/Save]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.energybiz.com%2Fart….> <http://www.energybiz.com/article/10/09/throwing-debris-coal-industry##> The coal industry is the target of a lot of debris. While most of it is being tossed by environmental organizations, the rubble is now coming from the investment banking industry - those that finance the operations of coal mining companies. At issue is mountaintop mining practices in Appalachia, which sheer off the tops of hillsides to get at the underlying coal seam. Besides the scarring of the landscape, the rock and dirt that is removed ends up in the streams below and affects local water quality. So, some of the big banks have limited their involvement with the coal companies. It's all part of a greater push by the green groups to curb coal consumption in this country. The focus now is on the mountaintop mining practices in Kentucky, Tennessee and West Virginia - one that is supported in part by the current Environmental Protection Agency that has placed limits on the mining technique. <http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/e77fdd4f5afd88a3852576b3005a604f/4…> That movement is gaining strength now that Bank of America, Citi, Credit Suisse, JPMorgan Chase, Morgan Stanley and Wells Fargo have set formal policies that will minimize their relationships with coal operators performing mountaintop removal. "Money talks - and it is saying loud and clear that mountaintop removal coal mining is a bad investment," says Rebecca Tarbotton, executive director of the Rainforest Network<http://ran.org/content/wall-street-backs-away-mountaintop-removal-coal-mini…>. "With the move away from mountaintop removal coal mining, our country's top banks are showing that they know they can do well while doing good for our environment and our public health." The organization, which first approached Bank of America three years ago on this issue, says that banks are no longer financing Massey Energy, which is the biggest coal operator in Appalachia involved with mountaintop removal. Specifically, it says that JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America and Wells Fargo all underwrote bonds and provided loans for the company but they no longer do. But such a view may turn out to be sanctimonious and one that will cost them business as other financial institutions step in and take their business. Indeed, PNC and UBS are more than willing to bankroll such operations. While coal companies will have tighter regulatory controls, they will not disappear as too much of the national economy - not to mention local jobs in Appalachia - are dependent on their product. *Balancing Act* The coal industry, in fact, has already marched on Washington to illustrate the role it now plays and what it is doing to repair the land and water. Beyond the political steps, it is also in the process of suing to regain some earlier mountaintop mining rights that have been lost since an adverse April ruling by the EPA. At stake: Appalachia is responsible for a third of the nation's coal and two-thirds of those jobs, it says. The Energy Information Administration estimates that coal reserves in Appalachia are 55.2 billion tons while coal production tied to mountaintop mining in West Virginia alone is 52 million tons annually, which is more than the production of underground mining operations. "We plan to highlight the critically important role of the American coal miner and to call on lawmakers and administration officials to stop efforts to regulate the coal industry - and the thousands of jobs it provides - out of business," says Chris Hamilton, senior vice president of the West Virginia Coal Association. "West Virginia's congressional delegation understands the importance of coal to our local economies and national energy plan, but many federal legislators and bureaucrats do not." Hamilton points to a recent study by the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee's Minority Staff that highlights the economic effect of the EPA's limits on coal mining permits in Central Appalachia. According to the study, nearly 18,000 new and existing jobs and more than 80 small businesses are being jeopardized. He says that about 190 permits are still awaiting action. Mountaintop mining gained prevalence in the 1990s, largely because about 90 percent of the resources that lay beneath those peaks were available for production. After the area is mined for coal, it must be "reclaimed" and turned into something useful such as schools, shopping malls and recreational sites. It's a lot more troublesome than that, say environmentalists and other critics. Roughly 6,700 permits were issued between 1985 and 2001 and all to unload debris from the mining process to the areas below. According to the Environmental Protection Agency, about 2,000 miles of streams have been buried while at least 380,000 acres of local forestry have been devastated. "We will continue to work with all stakeholders to find a way forward that follows the science and the law," says Lisa Jackson, EPA Administrator. "Getting this right is important to Americans who rely on affordable coal to power homes and businesses, as well as coal communities that count on jobs and a livable environment, both during mining and after coal companies move to other sites." Adding financial pressures to the current regulatory ones in effect will likely result in better mining practices - not an outright ban on mountaintop removal. In a country that is dependent on coal, that's acceptable. So what do you think? Please share your thoughts by posting a quick comment below, or by sending me a longer reply to energybizinsider(a)energycentral.com . EnergyBiz Insider is nominated for Best Online Column by Media Industry News follow ken at www.twitter.com/freehand1200

1 0

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

EC October 2010