December 2011 - EC - lists.cheatlakeclear.org

renewable energy trade war
by Frank Young 30 Dec '11

30 Dec '11

BlankWe know that renewable energy is coming of age when trade wars breaks out among the various international players in the industry. ------------------------------------- "U.S. manufacturers of wind turbine towers jumped into a growing renewable energy trade war Thursday, asking the U.S. Department of Commerce and the International Trade Commission to investigate and slap tariffs on Chinese and Vietnamese manufacturers for dumping towers in the U.S. market below cost." http://www.oregonlive.com/business/index.ssf/2011/12/us_wind_tower_makers_s…

1 0

Fwd: GA Chapt Victory! -- Longleaf Defeat Marks End to Nation's Longest Running Fight Against Coal Plant
by James Kotcon 27 Dec '11

27 Dec '11

The Georgia Chapter invited me down in 2006 to talk about air pollution from this plant. Congrats on their victory. Jim Kotcon From: FRED [mailto:CONS-FRED@LISTS.SIERRACLUB.ORG] On Behalf Of Paula Carrell Sent: Monday, December 12, 2011 11:13 AM To: CONS-FRED(a)LISTS.SIERRACLUB.ORG Subject: GA Chapt Victory! -- Longleaf Defeat Marks End to Nation’s Longest Running Fight Against Coal Plant allies too, of course when I first met GA Chapt Director, Colleen Kiernan, this coal plant fight was on her plate as a national organizing staffer in GA . . . so it's been a while to Triumph "hang in there" is a big part of the message here pc For Immediate Release: December 12, 2011 Contact: Bobby McLendon, Friends of the Chattahoochee, (229) 308-6782 ( tel:%28229%29%20308-6782 ) Justine Thompson, GreenLaw, (404) 659-3122 ( tel:%28404%29%20659-3122 ) Colleen Kiernan, Sierra Club, (404) 607-1262 x 224 ( tel:%28404%29%20607-1262%20x%20224 ) Longleaf Defeat Marks End to Nation’s Longest Running Fight Against Coal Plant Agreement Marks Milestone of 160 Coal Plants Canceled Atlanta, GA - The country’s longest-running campaign against construction of a new coal plant ended today as LS Power, a New Jersey-based power company, announced that it will cancel plans to build the Longleaf Energy Station in Blakely, GA. Sierra Club, Friends of the Chattahoochee and GreenLaw have been organizing against the Longleaf coal plant since it was first proposed in 2001. This victory comes as part of a legal agreement between LS Power and Sierra Club. This victory marks the 160th proposed coal plant canceled since Sierra Club launched its Beyond Coal campaign in 2005. This victory is particularly noteworthy because the struggle lasted for a decade and involved numerous hearings and appeals, and sustained local opposition by hundreds of Georgia residents. Longleaf was one of the very first plants proposed when, in 2001, the coal industry attempted to block clean energy development by building more than 150 new coal plants across the US, a move which would have effectively locked the nation into dependence on coal-fired electricity for the foreseeable future. Longleaf was one of the last remaining new coal projects proposed anywhere in the United States, counting 160 proposals that have now been defeated or abandoned in the past decade. Several times over the past decade it looked like LS Power would move forward with its proposed coal plant, but local residents continued their opposition through multiple tactics, including holding a call-in day this past June when more than 250 Georgians called LS Power asking the CEO to cancel the proposal. “This is not just a victory for the individuals and organizations fighting this plant, but also for all Georgians, who are now safe from a major new source of toxic air pollution,” said Colleen Kiernan, Director of the Georgia Chapter of the Sierra Club. “This victory represents our best work: combining the power of the courts, the power of the people and the power of the press.” Sierra Club and Friends of the Chattahoochee were represented by GreenLaw, an Atlanta-based nonprofit law firm, in a series of legal challenges to the permits issued for the plant. The legal battle over the Longleaf coal plant made national and international news when Fulton County Superior Court Judge Thelma Wyatt Cummings Moore issued a ruling that the plant’s air quality permit was illegal because it failed to provide any limits on emissions of CO2. While Judge Moore’s decision was later overturned, the United States Environmental Protection Agency adopted much of the legal reasoning of the decision in promulgating rules to limit CO2 emissions from larger industrial facilities. “Longleaf’s cancelation is one of dozens that have swept the nation, which raises the question – when will state officials finally learn that Georgia’s citizens deserve better than coal?” said GreenLaw’s Executive Director, Justine Thompson. “Georgia has a promising future – but to be a serious player in the global economy while also ensuring that we have clean air and water, Georgia needs to embrace energy efficiency and more renewable sources of energy.” The announcement comes as part of a nationwide agreement with Sierra Club that also requires LS Power to abandon its proposed Plum Point 2 coal plant in Arkansas and imposes strict new limits on air pollution from the new Sandy Creek coal plant in Texas. The agreement requires the company to withdraw all requests for permits in Georgia and Arkansas, and that any issued permits be rescinded or revoked. Local residents, who would have been most significantly affected by the plant’s construction, were active in opposing the plant. “When we found out the truth about what this plant would do to our lives, we had no choice but to oppose it. We were just regular people who want our grandchildren to breathe clean air,” said Bobby McLendon, President of Friends of the Chattahoochee. “Helping to stop this plant is probably the most important thing I have ever done for my family, my community and the Earth.” If built, Plant Longleaf would have contributed 88 pounds of toxic mercury per year, 1938 pounds of lead per year, and more than 8000 tons of soot and smog per year, to Georgia’s atmosphere and water system. Mercury pollution can cause neurological disorders and birth defects in babies, and soot and smog contribute to respiratory illness and trigger asthma attacks. Sierra Club, GreenLaw, and several other environmental and public health organizations continue to fight the two remaining coal plant proposals in Georgia proposed by POWER4Georgians in Central and Southeast Georgia. These groups’ work to transition Georgia off of imported coal and onto homegrown clean energy like wind and solar is part of a national effort involving unprecedented collaboration by more than a hundred organizations nationwide. Over the past decade this national campaign has stopped 160 proposed coal plants and secured record investments in clean energy. Since November 2008 only one coal plant has broken ground anywhere in the United States, a highly-subsidized project in Mississippi. A timeline, avoided emissions, and other documents related to Longleaf can be found at: www.greenlaw.org/Longleaf. ### Friends of the Chattahoochee seek to protect the Chattahoochee River and the environment. A multi-state, non-profit organization that opposes any new industry that will adversely impact the Chattahoochee River watershed, it monitors existing industry to ensure that all environmental regulations and safeguards are being adhered to. www.friendsofthechattahoochee.org GreenLaw is dedicated to preventing air and water pollution that endangers human health and degrades Georgia’s natural resources. GreenLaw achieves these goals by providing free high quality legal and technical assistance to environmental organizations and community groups throughout Georgia. www.greenlaw.org The Sierra Club works to protect our communities and the planet. Inspired by nature to contribute and participate, our members and supporters number more than 1.3 million friends and neighbors. The Sierra Club is America's largest grassroots environmental organization. www.sierraclub.org and www.georgia.sierraclub.org - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - To unsubscribe from the CONS-FRED list, send any message to: CONS-FRED-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 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - To unsubscribe from the CONS-FRED list, send any message to: CONS-FRED-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

Fwd: Mary Anne Hitt column: Today's AEP/SWPEPCO victory
by James Kotcon 27 Dec '11

27 Dec '11

---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Heather Moyer <heather.moyer(a)sierraclub.org> Date: Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 12:56 PM Subject: Mary Anne Hitt column: Today's AEP/SWPEPCO victory To: COAL-CAMPAIGN-ALERTS(a)lists.sierraclub.org Hi folks- Mary Anne's got a second column this week, it's all about today's victory in the south. Please share it via Twitter, Facebook, etc... And please comments on / recommend it on these sites: Compass: http://sierraclub.typepad.com/compass/2011/12/a-clean-air-christmas-another… Grist: http://www.grist.org/article/2011-12-22-a-clean-air-christmas-another-beyon… Daily Kos: www.dailykos.com/story/2011/12/22/1047940/-A-Clean-Air-Christmas:-Another-B…! Alternet: http://blogs.alternet.org/maryannehitt/2011/12/22/a-clean-air-christmas-ano… Huffington Post (up within 24 hours): http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mary-anne-hitt FULL TEXT: A Clean Air Christmas: Another Beyond Coal Victory to Close the Year! Well, we certainly are closing out this year with lots of good news to report. Today, the Sierra Club and Audubon are announcing a legal settlement with American Electric Power/Southwestern Electric Power Company (AEP/SWEPCO) that will retire a dirty coal plant and bring us lots of new clean energy. If all you wanted for Christmas this year was clean air, then you are in luck! The deal will retire Welsh 2, a dirty coal plant upwind of Arkansas in northeastern Texas. It requires AEP to install 400 MW of clean energy – the equivalent of a medium-sized coal plant. It includes $2 million to support increased energy efficiency programs in Arkansas, Oklahoma, Louisiana, and Texas, which will help lower electric bills for families at a time when every penny counts. It prevents siting of transmission lines in sensitive natural areas. And it sets aside $8 million for land and habitat conservation in the region, which will go to the Nature Conservancy. The settlement will also allow AEP to finish construction on the nearly-complete Turk power plant in Arkansas, which the Sierra Club and allies have been fighting for four years. As Glen Hooks, our Sierra Club campaign representative in Arkansas, put it, "While we'd prefer that the Turk plant not be built, today's settlement brings some very good news for Arkansas, which would not have been possible without years of citizen opposition to dirty coal plants." For details about the settlement, you can read our press release ( http://action.sierraclub.org/site/MessageViewer?em_id=223281.0 ). This settlement continues a trend that is underway nationwide – old, dirty coal plants are on their way out, and clean energy is on the rise. In 2011, we saw the largest-ever solar investments, and the second-largest investments ever in wind. Since January 2010, over 10% of the nation's coal plants have been slated for retirement. And since we launched our Beyond Coal campaign in 2002, we have defeated 161 new coal plants, leaving the door open for the clean energy revolution that is now taking center stage. This holiday, I'm thankful for all the allies and activists that helped make this happen, including amazing legal work by the Environmental Integrity Project. This AEP settlement is one more landmark victory along the way towards a clean energy future. Have a happy holiday season – here’s to making 2012 a banner year for clean air, clean water, and clean energy! -- Mary Anne Hitt, Director of the Sierra Club Beyond Coal Campaig ( http://beyondcoal.org/ ) --- Heather Moyer Senior Media Writer 202-675-6276 ( tel:202-675-6276 ) Sierra Club 50 F Street, 8th Floor Washington, DC 20001 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 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/

1 0

Fwd: Link to mining article from Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (http://www.pnas.org)
by James Kotcon 24 Dec '11

24 Dec '11

Take the time to read this one. Or at least look at all the pretty pictures! This shows the very strong correlations among mining, TDS, selenium, and impacts to aquatic communities. JBK >>> <jkotcon(a)wvu.edu> 12/24/2011 10:28 AM >>> James Kotcon (jkotcon(a)wvu.edu) has sent this article to you from Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Cumulative impacts of mountaintop mining on an Appalachian watershed http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2011/12/05/1112381108.full.pdf+html -------------------------------------------------------------------- I thought you might be interested in the article I found in the publication: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences -------------------------------------------------------------------- This is sent to you as an email-a-colleague feature from Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences at http://www.pnas.org

4 4

Re: [EC] Cumulative impact of mountaintop mining documented
by Paul Wilson 24 Dec '11

24 Dec '11

This was in the Science Daily e-newsletter.follow the link... fyi, paul Cumulative impact of mountaintop mining documented<http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/sciencedaily/top_news/top_environment/~3/TFI…> Posted: 12 Dec 2011 12:31 PM PST Increased salinity and concentrations of trace elements in one West Virginia watershed have been tied directly to multiple surface coal mines upstream by a detailed new survey of stream chemistry. Researchers who conducted the study said it provides new evidence of the cumulative effects multiple mountaintop mining permits can have in a river network. -- 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

2 1

Fwd:Longview Power Plant up and running
by James Kotcon 22 Dec '11

22 Dec '11

More news. JBK >>> "Donald C. Strimbeck" dcsoinks(a)comcast.net> 12/22/2011 4:10 AM >> ( mailto:dcsoinks@comcast.net ) DOMINION POST Thursday 22 December 2011: UPDATE Longview Power Plant up and running $2B facility producing 700 megawatts a day BY ALEX LANG The Dominion Post Longview Power Plant, is now just that — a power plant. General Manager Charlie Huguenard said the plant, north of Morgantown, reached substantial competition last week, meaning most of the work is done. Crews will continue to do minor work, testing and repairs as needed, Huguenard said. But, the Longview power staff has taken control of the coal-to-electricity facility. The facility cost about $2 billion to build. The plant is generating electricity 24 hours a day, Huguenard said. Each day, 700 megawatts — enough to power 7 million 100-watt bulbs — go into the electrical grid. The plant sells its energy to PJM Interconnection. There was a delay in reaching substantial competition as the contractor had to fix a few issues, such as problems with the boiler, Huguenard said. As part of the commissioning process, the plant performed emissions tests, which Huguenard said went smoothly. To get a permit, the state’s Department of Environmental Protection gave it the lowest permitted air emissions rating to date. The plant is the lowest airemissions plant in the state, if not one of the lowest in the country, Huguenard said. Not everybody was pleased with the plant, however. Chairman of the state’s Sierra Club Executive Committee, Jim Sconyers, said the group battled the plant, but lost. Despite the company’s environmental claims, Sconyers said people should be concerned about the emissions from a coal facility. “You can only be so clean, if you’re burning coal to make electricity,” Sconyers said. There is a bit of a bright side, he added. As part of the settlement with the Sierra Club, the Longview Power Plant will begin to donate $500,000 to nonprofit organizations to cover the costs of helping to reduce carbon-dioxide emissions and to take care of local waterways. The plant has 96 full-time workers who are based in Morgantown, Huguenard said. The company estimates the plant will increase state and local revenues by roughly $7.9 million a year and boost annual labor income in local counties by $43 million. Now that the plant has reached substantial completion, Huguenard said he plans to remain with the project to oversee the transition from construction to operations. Longview Power acquires plant 12/22/2011 3:32 AM Longview Power has accepted ownership of the 695-megawatt, coal-fired plant it constructed in Monongalia County, W.Va., just south of the Greene County border. The company accepted ownership from the plant's main contractors after it was the determined the plant had achieved "substantial completion," said a news release issued by the company. The main contractors on the $2 billion project were Kvaerner North American Construction Inc. and Siemens Energy Inc. The plant had begun producing electricity in May and since that time has been going through numerous tests in preparation for commercial operations. "During the development, construction and commissioning of this complex facility, we have successfully met highly rigorous standards and requirements for operational performance, environmental compliance and safety," said Charlie Huguenard, Longview general manager. "We look forward to productive and sustained commercial operation of the facility for decades to come," he said. The plant was first proposed in late 2002, and after all permits were received, a process that included lengthy legal challenges to its air-quality permit, groundbreaking was held in May 2007. The plant will operate under the lowest permitted air emission limits imposed by West Virginia for a coal-fired plant, the company said. At full load, the plant will burn about 6,600 tons of coal a day, most of it mined in Greene County at mines owned by Mepco LLC, a parent company of Dana Mining Co. The coal is conveyed to the plant by means of a 4.5-mile coal conveyor belt constructed from Dana's 4 West Mine near Bobtown to the power plant. The plant also will use water for cooling drawn from the Monongahela River and treated at a plant the company constructed near Poland Mines. The Longview plant is the largest privately funded project in West Virginia history. It is staffed by 96 full-time employees and generates an additional 500 indirect jobs in the region, the company said. Copyright Observer Publishing Co. EPA acts to make air cleaner New rules force oil-, coal-fired power plants to lower pollutants periling health Thursday, December 22, 2011 By Don Hopey, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette In one of its most significant initiatives in 20 years, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency announced final health-based rules Wednesday for controlling mercury, acid gases and other air toxics from oil- and coal-burning power plants. The Mercury and Air Toxics Standards will save 11,000 lives and prevent 4,700 heart attacks and 130,000 childhood asthma attacks a year by 2016, according to the EPA, while reducing respiratory ailments, birth defects and cancers. And, according to the Electric Power Generation Association of Pennsylvania, while the new standards may contribute to the retirement of eight to 10 small, old, coal-fired power plants in the state, it likely will not cause any power blackouts and should open the way for development of more natural gas-fueled power plants. The first national emissions controls on utilities will reduce emissions of mercury -- a potent neurotoxin -- arsenic, chromium, lead, nickel and acid gases from power plants by 91 percent. Every dollar spent to reduce power plant pollution, the EPA said, will result in up to $9 in public health benefits, and the total health and economic benefits resulting from the long-awaited standards could be as much as $90 billion annually. "By cutting emissions that are linked to developmental disorders and respiratory illnesses like asthma, these standards represent a major victory for clean air and public health -- and especially for the health of our children," EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson said in Washington, D.C. "With these standards that were two decades in the making, EPA is rounding out a year of incredible progress on clean air in America with another action that will benefit the American people for years to come." Ms. Jackson said the toxics pollution controls could increase utility bills by $3 to $4 a month for consumers. The rules might also cause utilities to close some of the nation's oldest and biggest polluting power plants. The new standards were not welcomed by many in the utility and coal industries. Scott Segal, director of the Electric Reliability Coordinating Council, a coalition of utilities that lobbies on electric power issues in Washington, D.C., and Steve Miller, president and chief executive officer of the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity, said the EPA's rules will increase the cost of power, cause job losses, and have few health benefits. The rules, however, were praised by environmental, health, science, sportsmen's, investment, sustainable business and religious organizations, and even some electric utilities. Some called the rules "long overdo" and "monumental" and "historic" in their positive impacts on public health, the environment and the economy. "As a result of the new standards, we will begin to see some relief from the power plant pollution that harms our health," said Deborah Brown, president and CEO of the American Lung Association of Pennsylvania. "This action is a significant victory in the fight for healthy air." Bill McLin, president and CEO of the Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America, a not-for-profit health organization advocating for asthma sufferers, said the 20 million Americans with asthma, including 6.7 million children, will breathe easier because of the EPA's decision to control power plant emissions. Coal-fired power plants are the largest sources of mercury, arsenic and other hazardous air pollutants. After intense industry lobbying, coal- and oil-fired electric power generators were exempted from 1990 Clean Air Act regulations governing toxic air emissions from other industrial operations. Today, about 44 percent of the nation's more than 440 coal-fired power plants continue to operate without any pollution controls and are responsible for 99 percent of mercury emissions from the electric power industry. The new Mercury and Air Toxics Standards, or MATS, contain two rules. The first establishes numerical limitations for mercury, airborne particles or soot, hydrochloric acid and metals. The second rule tightens limits that new coal-fired power plants must meet for airborne particle, sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides emissions. The new rules, based on more than 130 peer-reviewed scientific and health studies, give power plants that don't use controls three years to install the equipment, with a possible additional one-year extension. In addition, the rules provide for case-by-case extensions where necessary to ensure that electricity supply reliability is maintained. According to the EPA, the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards and the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule, which was issued earlier this year, are the most significant steps to clean up pollution from power plant smokestacks since the Acid Rain Program of the 1990s. Combined, the rules annually could prevent up to 46,000 premature deaths, 540,000 asthma attacks among children and 24,500 emergency room visits and hospital admissions. Power plant mercury controls already exist in 17 states, but not in Pennsylvania, where a mercury rule was declared unconstitutional by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in 2009. A Natural Resources Defense Council report in July listed Pennsylvania as having the second-worst toxic air emissions in the nation, behind Ohio, and Pennsylvania's mercury emissions are second to Texas. Mark Baird, a spokesman for GenOn, owner of 18 power plants in Pennsylvania, said the company wouldn't comment on the rules until it has an opportunity to examine them in detail. FirstEnergy, which owns four coal-fired power plants in Pennsylvania, including Hatfield's Ferry power plant in Greene County and Bruce Mansfield power plant in Shippingport, Beaver County, also said it is reviewing the rules. When the rules were proposed earlier this year, FirstEnergy estimated compliance costs at $2 billion to $3 billion. "Over the next few months we'll evaluate things and look at our individual units to determine what they need to do to meet the regulations," said Ray Evans, environment executive director for FirstEnergy. "We have scrubbers on most all of the units but some might need retrofits." Mr. Segal, of the Electric Reliability Coordinating Council, and Mr. Miller, of the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity, said the EPA's rules will also make electricity less reliable. And just two months ago, Gov. Tom Corbett joined 10 other Republican governors in signing a letter to President Barack Obama asking him to withdraw the rules because of power supply reliability concerns. But most national studies don't support that blackout warning, and Doug Biden, president of the Electric Power Generation Association in Pennsylvania, a Harrisburg association representing power producers statewide, said such an occurrence is very unlikely in Pennsylvania. Mr. Biden said he does expect eight to 10 coal-fired power plants to close in the next few years, reducing Pennsylvania's power output by 3,000 to 4,000 megawatts, from its current total output of about 50,000 megawatts. He said he doesn't know which individual plants might close. "I do expect significant retirements of coal power plants, but I'm not blaming the EPA's air toxics rules ...," Mr. Biden said. "When you look at everything together, the new rules, historically low natural gas prices and stubbornly high coal prices due to overseas demand, all of that makes it very difficult for companies to justify operation of small, older power plants." Don Hopey: dhopey(a)post-gazette.com or 412-263-1983. First published on December 22, 2011 at 12:00 am Charleston Gazette Thursday 22 December 2011: December 21, 2011 Engineers hired to develop Kanawha cracker plant By Paul J. Nyden ( http://www.wvgazette.com/News/contact/cwalqra+jitnmrggr+pbz+return=/News/20… ) CHARLESTON, W.Va. -- Richard Neely, a Charleston lawyer and former state Supreme Court justice, announced Wednesday that two experienced engineers are working with him on his plans to design and build a cracker plant near Montgomery to process natural gas. Neely recently incorporated Invictus LLC, whose cracking plant will produce a variety of products, including diesel fuel, gasoline, naphtha and ethylene -- a major product used by the plastics industry. The two engineers are: * Rob Proffitt, who lives in Winfield, was project manager for Union Carbide when it built a $1.3 billion ethane cracker plant in Alberta, Canada, between 1996 and 2001. The Alberta plant was a joint venture between Carbide and Nova Chemicals. * Cyril B. Tellis, who has a doctorate in chemical engineering from Northwestern University, was a research and development manager for Carbide's facilities that produced and refined ethylene and propylene, as well as a number of chemical derivatives. Neely said Tellis, who now lives in Charleston, worked for a variety of projects, including a major cracking plant in Saudi Arabia that supplies ethylene for plastics throughout Europe and coal-to-gas Sasol plants in South Africa. Sasol Ltd. is a South African company involved in mining, energy, chemicals and synfuels. During the apartheid era, when many countries boycotted trade with South Africa, Sasol produced petroleum and diesel products from coal and natural gas. Neely estimates it would cost $1.5 billion to build a cracking plant that produces high-quality products for the chemical industry and $3 billion for a plant that produces gasoline and diesel fuel from natural gas. The proposed plant could possibly get wet natural gas reserves pipelined to Kanawha County from both Marcellus Shale reserves in northern West Virginia and Utica Shale reserves in Athens County and surrounding areas in eastern Ohio. "People are going after oil in Utica Shale reserves. They are not looking for gas," Neely said. "And Ohio will not let you flare natural gas [to eliminate it] after 30 days from the time you open a well." CHARLESTON, W.Va. -- Richard Neely, a Charleston lawyer and former state Supreme Court justice, announced Wednesday that two experienced engineers are working with him on his plans to design and build a cracker plant near Montgomery to process natural gas. Neely recently incorporated Invictus LLC, whose cracking plant will produce a variety of products, including diesel fuel, gasoline, naphtha and ethylene -- a major product used by the plastics industry. The two engineers are: * Rob Proffitt, who lives in Winfield, was project manager for Union Carbide when it built a $1.3 billion ethane cracker plant in Alberta, Canada, between 1996 and 2001. The Alberta plant was a joint venture between Carbide and Nova Chemicals. * Cyril B. Tellis, who has a doctorate in chemical engineering from Northwestern University, was a research and development manager for Carbide's facilities that produced and refined ethylene and propylene, as well as a number of chemical derivatives. Neely said Tellis, who now lives in Charleston, worked for a variety of projects, including a major cracking plant in Saudi Arabia that supplies ethylene for plastics throughout Europe and coal-to-gas Sasol plants in South Africa. Sasol Ltd. is a South African company involved in mining, energy, chemicals and synfuels. During the apartheid era, when many countries boycotted trade with South Africa, Sasol produced petroleum and diesel products from coal and natural gas. Neely estimates it would cost $1.5 billion to build a cracking plant that produces high-quality products for the chemical industry and $3 billion for a plant that produces gasoline and diesel fuel from natural gas. The proposed plant could possibly get wet natural gas reserves pipelined to Kanawha County from both Marcellus Shale reserves in northern West Virginia and Utica Shale reserves in Athens County and surrounding areas in eastern Ohio. "People are going after oil in Utica Shale reserves. They are not looking for gas," Neely said. "And Ohio will not let you flare natural gas [to eliminate it] after 30 days from the time you open a well." "We will be willing to take that gas, wet gas, which has to go to some kind of a plant," Neely said. "People might come and beg us to get rid of their gas." Invictus has already acquired the rights to 1,456 acres of land to build its cracking plant and related facilities near Coalburg, between Montgomery and Cabin Creek. Most of the facilities will be built on land that was previously a mountaintop removal coal mine. The Kanawha Valley, Neely said, is a good place to develop the cracking plant, especially with its long chemical-industry history. "We have everyone from smart blue-collar guys to chemical engineers with PhDs. We will also provide union-wage jobs. "Here, there is a far greater reserve of people who know about the chemical industry than farther north, where they have steel and aluminum plants and other heavy industry." Neely said the CSX railroad, which has tracks between the Kanawha River and the proposed location of the new Invictus plant, will make it easy to ship the plant's products to Newport News, Va., for export. "CSX also connects to places throughout the industrial Midwestern heartland to cities like Cincinnati, Indianapolis and Gary." The cracking plant will also have access to a river dock that can handle eight barges. Reach Paul J. Nyden at pjny...(a)wvgazette.com ( http://www.wvgazette.com/News/contact/cwalqra+jitnmrggr+pbz+return=/News/20… ) or 304-348-5164. "We will be willing to take that gas, wet gas, which has to go to some kind of a plant," Neely said. "People might come and beg us to get rid of their gas." Invictus has already acquired the rights to 1,456 acres of land to build its cracking plant and related facilities near Coalburg, between Montgomery and Cabin Creek. Most of the facilities will be built on land that was previously a mountaintop removal coal mine. The Kanawha Valley, Neely said, is a good place to develop the cracking plant, especially with its long chemical-industry history. "We have everyone from smart blue-collar guys to chemical engineers with PhDs. We will also provide union-wage jobs. "Here, there is a far greater reserve of people who know about the chemical industry than farther north, where they have steel and aluminum plants and other heavy industry." Neely said the CSX railroad, which has tracks between the Kanawha River and the proposed location of the new Invictus plant, will make it easy to ship the plant's products to Newport News, Va., for export. "CSX also connects to places throughout the industrial Midwestern heartland to cities like Cincinnati, Indianapolis and Gary." The cracking plant will also have access to a river dock that can handle eight barges. Reach Paul J. Nyden at pjny...(a)wvgazette.com ( http://www.wvgazette.com/News/contact/cwalqra+jitnmrggr+pbz+return=/News/20… ) or 304-348-5164. THE STATE JOURNAL: EPA announces new clean air standards for coal and oil power plants Posted: Dec 21, 2011 11:26 AM EST Updated: Dec 21, 2011 5:18 PM EST By Pam Kasey New limits on power plant emissions of mercury and other air toxics and a three-year compliance timeline remain essentially as proposed in March in a long-expected U.S. Environmental Protection Agency rule issued Dec. 21. "With these standards that were two decades in the making, EPA is rounding out a year of incredible progress on clean air in America with another action that will benefit the American people for years to come," said EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson. "The Mercury and Air Toxics Standards will protect millions of families and children from harmful and costly air pollution and provide the American people with health benefits that far outweigh the costs of compliance." The MATS rule — also known as the Hazardous Air Pollutants rule for utilities and the Utility Maximum Available Control Technology rule — establishes the first national standards to limit toxic air emissions from power plants. The rule is expected to cut mercury emissions by 90 percent and also to cut emissions of arsenic, chromium, nickel, and acid gases including hydrochloric and hydrofluoric acid. The technology that controls those emissions also will reduce fine particulate matter. Mercury is a neurotoxin to which fetuses and children are particularly susceptible, while other targeted emissions cause cancer, chronic and acute respiratory disorders, and other illnesses. The compliance deadline is Jan. 1, 2015. Changes in the Final Rule The rule was issued several days after it was expected on Friday, Dec. 16, leading to speculation that it was being weakened in the final hours. Changes, however, were minor and kept the emissions limits and the three-year timeline essentially as proposed. Most notably, estimated costs and benefits dropped — from costs of about $11 billion per year in the proposed rule and benefits of up to $140 billion, to $9.7 and up to $90 billion in the final rule — but that's not the result of weakening, according to Jackson. Costs dropped due to efficiencies suggested by some of the 900,000 commenters on the proposal, she said. Benefits were reduced because analysis showed that some of the benefits will be realized through the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule issued earlier this year. MATS benefits occur primarily through as many as 11,000 premature deaths avoided per year but also through the avoidance of 4,700 non-fatal heart attacks, 130,000 cases of respiratory illness including aggravated asthma and acute and chronic bronchitis, and 540,000 days of missed work, according to the EPA. In addition, the EPA's jobs analysis finds a net gain of 46,000 short-term jobs as pollution control technologies are installed and 8,000 long-term jobs to operate and maintain those technologies. Plant Closures Expected Based on the draft rule and other environmental rules expected or already out, utilities have said they would close some plants that are too small and old to merit expensive retrofits. More than 30 plants in a dozen states likely will be retired and another 34 may retire, according to an Associated Press survey based on the draft rule and reported on Dec. 19. In West Virginia, AEP has said it expects this rule, with other EPA regulations, to lead to the closure of its Philip Sporn plant in Mason County, Kanawha River plant in Kanawha County and Kammer plant in Marshall County. Those three plants amount to 2,200 megawatts of older coal-fired generating capacity — 12 percent of the state's generating capacity but only about one-tenth of 1 percent of generation in 2010. FirstEnergy has not yet announced its plans. "We would need some time to evaluate what the final rules are and how they might impact our operations," said FirstEnergy spokesman Mark Durbin. "At this time, no final decisions have been made on the future of our fossil generating plants." A state regulator has suggested that FirstEnergy's small, old Albright, Rivesville and Willow Island plants may be retired. Those total about 600 megawatts of capacity and represented much less than one-tenth of one percent of generation in 2010. Utilities, regulators and electric trade organizations raised concerns that the combined capacity of plant retirements expected from the proposed rule and the tight timeline could lead to reliability problems. The AP concluded after its survey that the concern likely was overblown; however, the EPA provided in its final rule for a fourth compliance year for technology installations and further flexibility for localized reliability problems. Reactions The National Mining Association belittled the flexibility as inadequate. "The modest adjustment to the compliance timeline in the MACT standard merely papers over a deeply flawed rule," said NMA President and CEO Hal Quinn in a media release. But PJM Interconnection, which manages the grid in a 13-state region that includes West Virginia, supported the flexibility measures. "We at PJM are pleased that the EPA administrator has included the key elements of our proposed process to preserve reliability into documents accompanying the final rule," the organization wrote in a media release. The Sierra Club applauded the rule as a "milestone." And the sustainability advocacy group CERES said the rule would "unleash investment" in infrastructure and create jobs up and down the supply chain. Soon after the EPA made its announcement, Rep. Nick Rahall, D-W.Va., issued a statement in which he said he had "serious concerns" about the new rules. "In fact, I have voted in Congress to prevent their implementation in the near term. The rules are likely to drive up energy prices for American consumers and result in the loss of jobs for coal miners while doing nothing to address the growth in global emissions," he said. "It certainly makes more sense to me to be investing in American-made technologies to help American utilities upgrade to more efficient, cleaner ways of using domestic coal, rather than putting the rulemaking hammer to American plants and forcing our coal to be shipped overseas where emissions will be even greater. From the standpoint sufficiency of our energy supply and protection of our global atmosphere, we ought to be looking creatively at coal power, rather than instituting policies that force coal out of our energy sector." Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., also was critical of the rules. "Today's announcement of yet another onerous rule by the EPA completely ignores the devastating impact these regulations will have on jobs and our economy, not only in West Virginia but across this nation," he said. "The Utility MACT Rule, combined with the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule that was finalized earlier this year, are two of the most expensive regulations ever to be imposed, and every American should be concerned about their effect on energy prices, the reliability of our power supply, our coal mining industry and most importantly our families," Senator Manchin said. "I believe we can find a responsible and reasonable balance when it comes to the environment and our energy needs as a nation. My desire to achieve this balance is why my Republican colleague Dan Coats of Indiana and I introduced the Fair Compliance Act – a commonsense, bipartisan piece of legislation that would create a fair timeframe to comply with new rules. I hope that Congress will address these regulations, and take up the Fair Compliance Act as soon as possible, to prevent the potential loss of a million jobs, increased utility rates, and more damage to our economy." W.Va. developing incentive plan to attract ethane cracker Posted: Dec 21, 2011 11:38 AM EST Updated: Dec 21, 2011 11:47 AM EST By Jim Ross West Virginia could be about to up its bet in the game to win a $2 billion ethane cracker plant. Keith Burdette, West Virginia secretary of commerce and head of the West Virginia Development Office, says he may ask the Legislature to consider an incentive plan that would nearly eliminate personal property taxes on crackers and related developments that involve an investment of $2 billion or more. Existing law allows the state to reduce the personal property tax rate to 5 percent for a maximum of 10 years. Burdette says he may ask the Legislature to extend that cut to 25 years. Incentives come into play because West Virginia is trying to land one or perhaps two ethane crackers to take advantage of development of Marcellus shale gas fields. At least three companies — Shell Chemicals, Dow Chemical Co. and Brazil-based Braskem SA — have been named in news reports as having interest in building new cracker plants in the United States. Shell has said it wants to announce its preferred site for a cracker in the Appalachian region by the end of January. Shell has also said its January announcement will not be the final decision on where it wants to build its cracker. Burdette said a second company that's looking at West Virginia will not announce its preferred site until it is further along in its due diligence. Bayer is offering property it owns in Kanawha and Marshall counties as sites for one or two crackers. Ohio is offering a $1.4 billion incentive package to land a cracker. "We think we can create a package that's competitive with any place," Burdette said this week. A cracker takes ethane, a byproduct of drilling for gas, breaks it down and reassembles the elements into products that are used in plastics industries. A cracker could mean thousands of construction jobs and hundreds of permanent jobs. According to Greenwire, a national energy and environmental news service, ethane is harder to move around than natural gas itself, also known as methane. Thus, ethane is usually cracked close to the wells that produce it. Burdette said he could not provide an estimate on how much his proposed incentive package would save an ethane producer, as personal property tax rates vary from county to county. But he did say he thinks incentives are only one part of the state's attractiveness to Shell and other companies. "It's not all about incentives. It's about sites. It's about infrastructure. It's about work force. It's about the expandability of the site itself. The incentive piece is the icing on the cake" he said. Planned Pipeline Would Fuel Power Stations From ShaleDecember 22, 2011 By CASEY JUNKINS Staff Writer , The Intelligencer / Wheeling News-Register CLARINGTON - Natural gas from the Utica and Marcellus shale formations may fire some American Electric Power plants across eastern Ohio, via a new pipeline network. "One of the areas of fastest growing demand is natural gas-fired power generation, as facilities either switch to cleaner-burning natural gas or are built to run on it," said Wendy K. Olson, spokeswoman for Spectra Energy Corp., the Houston, Texas-based pipeline developer. Spectra announced its intention to build the new pipeline - capable of transporting 1 billion cubic feet of natural gas each day - Wednesday. At the same time, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency released its report that will likely lead to the closure of many coal-fired power plants across the county, including AEP's Kammer Plant in Marshall County. AEP serves much of the Upper Ohio Valley, except Hancock, Brooke, Wetzel and Tyler counties. Natural gas "is 45 percent cleaner than coal and 30 percent cleaner than fuel oil. It's efficient and reliable. And now with the abundance of supply being brought online thanks to developing shale plays, it's now more affordable than ever," added Olson. Olson said the proposed pipeline would originate in Carroll County, Ohio, which lies to the north of Cadiz in Harrison County and west of East Liverpool in Columbiana County. This north-south running line would wind through Harrison and Belmont counties, before intersecting with the east-west running Texas Eastern pipeline near Clarington. The pipeline will only be built if Spectra receives additional supply commitments, but Olson said the line's projected in-service date is November 2014. "As environmental demands increase for cleaner power generation, natural gas is a fuel of choice to meet these needs - and it's a domestically abundant resource that helps increase our energy independence and bring jobs and revenue to our local communities," she added. AEP spokeswoman Melissa McHenry said her company committed to use about 10 percent of the pipeline's supply capacity, which would equal roughly 100 million cubic feet of gas per day. She said the gas would travel to the company's power plants that already run on natural gas. These AEP plants include: McHenry emphasized the planned pipeline is still in its very early stages, but said AEP is optimistic about the possibilities. Bill Yardley, group vice president of Spectra Energy Transmission, Northeast, is upbeat about the project. "At a time when there is growing environmental need for cleaner power generation, this new infrastructure will deliver clean, affordable and much-needed energy to Ohio, the Midwest and South," he said. Chesapeake Energy, which holds about 1.5 million net acres in the Utica play, is pursuing capacity on the Spectra pipeline as well. "Chesapeake has made a preliminary agreement to negotiate for the transportation of a yet-to-be-determined volume of natural gas through the pipeline, but will not make a capital investment in the project," said Chesapeake spokesman Pete Kenworthy. "Having access to multiple markets is beneficial for the development of the Utica." EPA Tells Power Plants To Clean Up Their ActsNew rules on mercury will force many shutdownsDecember 22, 2011 By DINA CAPPIELLO Associated Press Writer , The Intelligencer / Wheeling News-Register WASHINGTON - Clean up or shut down. That's the decision facing hundreds of the nation's oldest and dirtiest power plants under an Environmental Protection Agency rule announced Wednesday that will force plants to control mercury and other toxic pollutants for the first time. The long overdue national standards rein in the largest remaining source of uncontrolled toxic pollution in the U.S. - the emissions from the nation's coal- and oil-fired power plants, which have been allowed to run for decades without addressing their full environmental and public health costs. The impact of the ruling will be greatest in the Midwest and in the coal belt - Kentucky, West Virginia and Virginia - where dozens of units likely will be mothballed, according to an Associated Press survey. The majority of facilities will continue to run, and find ways to reduce pollution. About half of the 1,200 coal- and oil-fired units nationwide still lack modern pollution controls, despite the EPA in 1990 getting the authority from Congress to control toxic air pollution from power plant smokestacks. A decade later, in 2000, the agency concluded it was necessary to clamp down on the emissions to protect public health. At a press conference Wednesday at Children's National Medical Center in Washington, EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson said the regulation was the Obama administration's "biggest clean air action yet", trumping an agreement to double fuel economy standards for vehicles and another rule that will reduce emissions from power plants that foul the air in states downwind. The administration was under court order to issue a new rule, after a court threw out an attempt by the Bush administration to exempt power plants from toxic air pollution controls. "Before this rule, there were no national standards limiting the amount of mercury, arsenic, chromium, nickel and acid gases that power plants across the country could release into the air that we breathe," said Jackson, listing the contaminants linked to cancer, IQ loss, heart disease and lung disease that are covered by the rule, and that also pollute lakes, streams and fish. In a video released Wednesday afternoon, President Barack Obama said the decades of delays caused by special interest groups that resulted in standards never being put into place for power plants "was wrong." "Today, my administration is saying, 'Enough,'" he said. When fully implemented in 2016, the standards will slash mercury pollution from burning coal by 90 percent, lung-damaging acid gases by 88 percent and soot-producing sulfur dioxide by 41 percent. Power plant operators will have to choose between installing pollution control equipment, switching to cleaner-burning natural gas, or shutting down the plant. None of those choices come cheap - the EPA estimates the rule will cost $9.6 billion annually, making it one of the most expensive the agency has ever issued. Some power producers intensely lobbied the Obama administration to weaken the rule and to delay it, and Republicans in Congress passed legislation to do so, saying it would threaten jobs and the reliability of the power grid, and raise electricity prices. To ease those concerns, the administration will encourage states to make "broadly available" an additional fourth year to comply with the rule, as allowed by the law. Case-by-case extensions could also be granted to address local reliability issues, according to a presidential memorandum sent Wednesday to Jackson. In the memorandum, Obama directs the EPA to ensure that implementation of the rule "proceed in a cost-effective manner that ensures electric reliability." Environmentalists said Wednesday that the added flexibility did not jeopardize the public health benefits of the regulation. "After more than two decades of delay, dirty coal-fired power plants are going to be cleaned up in short order," said Frank O'Donnell, president of Clean Air Watch, who said the EPA "bent over backwards" to accommodate concerns about reliability. For those in the industry, and some in Congress, the concessions didn't go far enough. Oklahoma Sen. James Inhofe, the top Republican on the Senate's environment committee, said he would file a joint resolution, a rarely used Congressional tactic, to get the rule overturned. Some in the industry pushed for an automatic delay, or "safety valve," to make sure that plants that have to run to ensure reliability aren't found in violation of the rule and too many plants don't close down at once. Park Drilling ClearedBrooke Hills Board Signs With ChesapeakeDecember 21, 2011 By WARREN SCOTT , The Intelligencer / Wheeling News-Register The Brooke Hills Park board, at its regular meeting on Tuesday, entered into an agreement allowing for the park to receive royalties for natural gas drawn from nearly 100 acres there. Bill Watson, the board's legal counsel, noted the board, formally known as the Brooke County Park and Recreation Commission, had entered into a lease agreement with Chesapeake Appalachia allowing the company to drill for natural gas under park grounds. But park officials said later they learned mineral rights for much of the property belonged to descendants of the Gist family, who donated the land to the county more than 40 years ago. That resulted in the park being poised to receive royalties for 22 acres only, though the park commission received a $750,000 signing fee for the lease. Watson didn't go into detail at Tuesday's meeting but said the situation has changed, and the park can receive royalties on gas drawn from nearly 100 acres as projected originally. At a Brooke County Commission meeting in September, park officials hinted that mineral rights for the Gists' descendants could expire this year. Watson couldn't be reached for comment following the meeting. Walter Ferguson, the board's newly elected president - who was called for comment - said specific details about the agreement should be directed to Watson. But he confirmed crews with Chesapeake have drilled a vertical well at the park and hope to begin a horizontal one soon. Since September crews have been working in a wooded area at the rear of the park near Pierce Run Road. They had hoped to access the site from Pierce Run Road. But that would require them to cross the creek, so they have built a road to the park's main road instead, scheduling their hauling around such fall events as the Brooke County Fair and Brooke Hills Spooktacular. Natural gas drilling involves a controversial process known as hydraulic fracturing. It entails blasting the underground Marcellus shale with water, sand and chemicals, some of them toxic, to release the natural gas. Gas industry officials say the drilling occurs thousands of feet below water tables and wells are heavily sealed with concrete and steel to prevent the fluid from leaking into the ground. Opponents point to incidents in which wastewater from the process was spilled outside the wells or methane from abandoned coal mines was released, resulting in fires. Park board members said in January officials with Chesapeake have assured them the park won't be harmed. They noted the lease will be a major source of revenue for the park, which has struggled financially in recent years. Asked how the board will use the signing fee or royalties paid for the gas tapped there, Ferguson said the board has made plans to hire an architect to aid it in developing a plan for improvements. He noted replacing the park's aging swimming pool with a water park and adding an ice skating rink are ideas that have been suggested. Chesapeake also has approached the park commission for an easement allowing it to build an underground transmission line to transport the gas from the site. Ferguson said the board is still negotiating for the easement and construction of the transmission line is still a few years away. Pittsburgh Tribune Review: $500 million to expand natural gas shipping By Bloomberg News Thursday, December 22, 2011 Spectra Energy Corp. plans to spend about $500 million in Ohio to expand shipping capacity on its Texas Eastern pipeline system to handle rising natural-gas production from the Utica and Marcellus shale formations. American Electric Power Co. and Chesapeake Energy Corp., the largest holder of Utica Shale leases, signed an agreement to develop 70 miles of new lines, Houston-based Spectra said on Wednesday in a statement. The addition in Ohio will raise shipping capacity by 1 billion cubic feet a day, or about 18 percent, Wendy Olson, a Spectra spokeswoman, said in an e-mail today. Production from U.S. shale deposits, where water and chemicals are pumped underground at high pressure to break apart dense rock and release gas, more than doubled from 2007 to 2009, according to Energy Department data. American Electric, the largest U.S. coal burner, is pursuing pipeline capacity for gas-fired power plants, Spectra said. The utility owner, based in Columbus, Ohio, has estimated that tighter U.S. air-pollution restrictions may force it to close some coal-burning plants. "We do anticipate more than one plant will attach" to the new gas lines, Olson said. Chesapeake is pursuing additional shipping capacity for its production, Spectra said. The Oklahoma City-based company is the largest oil and gas leaseholder in the Utica shale with 1.4 million net acres. Spectra rose 1.6 percent to close at $30.50 in New York, the highest since it was spun off by Duke Energy Corp. in January 2007. American Electric shares rose 2.3 percent to $40.85, its highest since July 9, 2008. Chesapeake shares rose to $22.99. The project is slated to begin operating in November 2014, according to the statement. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Beth Little" <blittle(a)citynet.net> To: <blittle(a)citynet.net> Sent: Wednesday, December 21, 2011 4:03 PM Subject: FW: [MarcellusGasInfo] Fracking Is ZERO Tolerance (an unpublished P&S Guest Viewpoint) Here's a provocative idea from NY. Substitute Tomblin for governor and think about it. -----Original Message----- From: marcellusgasinfo(a)googlegroups.com [mailto:marcellusgasinfo@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Rich Kellman Sent: Tuesday, December 20, 2011 1:45 PM To: Subject: [MarcellusGasInfo] Fracking Is ZERO Tolerance (an unpublished P&S Guest Viewpoint) This is a paraphrased, modified version of a Guest Viewpoint I sent in but has not gotten published- I'm not holding my breath.The ideas are the same: Many,or all, supporters of fracking contend that it can be, and will be, done safely. Do these folks have a portal to the future which we frack-opponents have somehow been unfortunate enough to have missed? If Governor Cuomo and his subordinates at the DEC, as well as other governmental bodies which have a stake in drilling do, in fact, have these sure fire- precautions nailed down, then why haven't other states where drilling has been underway been beating down the DEC doors to get this information? Then they could put an end to at least some of the worst very well documented disastrous results that the environment, habitat, and humans have been forced to suffer for much too long. Fracking has no room whatsoever for error. Hopefully Mr. Cuomo will also learn this lesson. If we can imagine the following scenario which might "illuminate" some of the pressing fracking realities and consequences for him: Mr. Cuomo, as the State leader, should exhibit more leadership by example. The land, homes and properties surrounding the Governor's mansion and his private residence(s) would be taken by eminent domain. A 5 acre, or so ,drill pad would then be constructed by bulldozing ,trenching, and digging up everything that is in the way of this "technology". Mr.Cuomo would live in the mansion/residence(s), other than his work time, while all stages of the drilling process are carried out. He'll be asked to only use the same health/safety/living precautions that most of the other residents of New York are able to afford. At the end of this "experiment", the Governor will then be publicly asked "What do you think now?"District gets $628K for drilling lease 12/22/2011 3:33 AM SAXONBURG (AP) - A Pittsburgh-area school district has finalized a lease agreement with a gas drilling company and received $628,000 up front. The Valley News Dispatch reported Wednesday that Phillips Exploration's lease with South Butler School District also carries an 18 percent royalty from any gas that is produced and sold from the acreage. Phillips Exploration is owned by Texas-based XTO Energy, which is owned by ExxonMobil. The newspaper reported that the lease requires district officials to approve the site of any well before Phillips drills, and any well or pipeline must be at least 500 feet from a district structure. The school board approved the five-year lease with a 6-2 vote in September. It covers about 165 acres the district owns. Copyright Observer Publishing Co. Corner Cupboard receives $16K donation from Consol 12/22/2011 3:33 AM By Jon Stevens, Staff writer jstevens(a)observer-reporter.com WAYNESBURG - Corner Cupboard Food Bank on Rolling Meadows Road received an early Christmas present Wednesday when Consol Energy presented the organization with an additional $16,000 raised through the employee sale of Pittsburgh Penguin T-shirts. The employee donation brings Consol Energy's gift to Corner Cupboard to more than $49,175 this holiday season. To kick off the companywide effort before Thanksgiving, Consol sponsored the fourth annual Corner Cupboard Holiday Food Drive at the Greene County Courthouse Nov. 15. Consol employees and food bank volunteers collected nonperishable food and monetary donations from those who attended as well as from area businesses. "In addition to the $20,000 we invested in-kind to the food drive event," the $8,175 collected at the event and Consol's $5,000 cash donation, "I am pleased to present an additional $16,000 from Consol's employees," said Laurel Ziemba, director of community relations for Consol. "Consol's annual contributions allow the Corner Cupboard Food Bank to double our funding to help the community's most vulnerable," said Jan Caldwell, executive director of the food bank. "We are especially grateful during the winter holidays when there is a substantial jump in the number in need of food assistance." Last year, Consol presented Caldwell with a large envelope containing checks totaling $35,680 from the T-shirt sales, prompting Caldwell to remark, "You guys are just awesome. I am speechless. This is just over the top." Consol began its holiday food drive in 2008, a year the food bank had to include chicken breasts as a substitute for a turkey in many of its Thanksgiving baskets. Those who would still like to donate money or food or are interested in volunteering with the food bank may call the food bank at 724-627-9784. Those who would like to send donations may direct them to Corner Cupboard Food Bank, 511 Rolling Meadows Road, Waynesburg, PA 15370. Copyright Observer Publishing Co. Don Strimbeck, Sec/Treas Upper Mon River Assoc UpperMon.org MonRiverSummit.org WVU t-shirts & prints - FindHarri.com 109 Broad Street, P. O. Box 519 Granville WV 26534-0519 304-599-7585 (fax 4131) dcsoinks(a)comcast.net

1 0

Re: [EC] DRassessment12 16 11.doc
by Allan Tweddle 21 Dec '11

21 Dec '11

Jeff There are several changes that I would recommend. First, thanks to WVU and several other independent medical research organizations, there is more than ample scientific evidence that the financial and social impact on health care, including premature death, loss of productivity and inability to work due to diseases like heart disease, cancers, and asthma caused by pollution from coal fired power plants are significant. But this report does not appear take into consideration these "legacy" costs when evaluating the economic comparatives of coal to renewable energy. As one who has a fiduciary responsibility to they State and Legislature for all our positions as a member of the PEA, I must go on record demanding that the true cost be identified in any economic analysis. As you know from my often offered, and to some, an irritating report, the Province of Ontario has in their annual Provincial Budget BOTH the generation/distribution of electric power from several generating methods, and the Province wide universal health care plan known as OHIP. The Provincial Government completed several years ago a detailed study to determine the true cost of coal fired power and included the cost of health care directly attributed to pollution from their coal fired power plants. Their 2 year study led them to conclude that renewable energy is less costly when the total cost is honestly added up, so they are on track to shut down ALL of their coal fired power plants by 2012. While the economics of BOTH power generation/distribution and health care are undoubtedly different between Ontario and West Virginia, we must, in all honest to the State Legislature, report the true cost of coal as it is understood today...and not by living in the past. Secondly, I note the Coal Association is asked for input data, but what about asking renewable energy industry sources, like WV Wind Working Group, environmental organizations like, but not limited to, the WV Chapter and National Sierra Club, OPEC, WV Environmental Council, and health care professionals who deal with these health impacts on a daily basis. Solar Energy, both photovoltaic and concentrated solar power technologies in particular, have been coming down in total costs significantly, some industry literature reporting 50% drop in the last year for some systems. Qualified industry sources should be consulted and asked to supply the current economics of these rapidly growing energy technologies. Third, the fact that the power industry has stated that they do not need to construct any renewable energy systems to me illustrates the illusion of this Alternative Energy Standard. No other jurisdiction that I am aware of has such a phony approach...we need a clean renewable energy standard period...20% by 2020. And the reason for that is that since the original standard was written, climatology scientists around the world have observed the impacts of climate change, and have determined that their original models for predicting the rise of temperature and impacts of climate change were too conservative. They clearly are warning that we are moving much more rapidly to a crisis level of GHG emissions. As the Durban South Africa meeting has just concluded and illustrates, the world IS coming together to address climate change, and we must too. But the opportunities for job creation are the plus side of solving this crisis, hence our State Energy Plan must be more aggressive in cutting GHG emissions that will create jobs in doing so. There are numerous studies supporting this statement, and we are foolish to ignore the global trends...as we do so at our economic peril. Finally, there should be a far more aggressive incentive program for net metering and distributed power. Respectfully Allan Tweddle From: Herholdt, Jeff F Sent: Monday, December 19, 2011 8:57 AM To: Randy.C.Huffman(a)wv.gov ; David Warner ; spettit(a)waco-trio.com ; Mike Ross ; allantweddle(a)msn.com Cc: Butler, Marie ; ahaden(a)psc.state.wv.us Subject: FW: DRassessment12 16 11.doc Gentlemen Last Monday (12/12) you were advised of the Public Service Commission and Division of Energy/ Public Energy Authority role in preparing a report on West Virginia's Alternative and Renewable Portfolio. In that email I shared with you information we provided to the PSC for use in preparation of the preliminary report. The preliminary report is to be submitted by the PSC by January 1 while the final report is due July 1, 2012. Attached is the draft preliminary report. Would appreciate your review and comments if any on this by Wednesday, December 21. Please feel free to contact me with questions. Jeff From: Haden, Amy [mailto:AHaden@psc.state.wv.us] Sent: Friday, December 16, 2011 4:04 PM To: Herholdt, Jeff F; Hitt, Richard Subject: DRassessment12 16 11.doc Jeff, Attached is a draft of the assessment. Note that parts of the text are highlighted with notes for your review and editing. At 8-9, the section of the economic impact of the Act on coal and coal mining was simplified. The discussion of the displacement analysis did not appear to be responsive to the Q. about the impact on coal and coal mining and it was a little difficult to follow. After looking at it, Rick and I thought it might be better to leave it out with some language added about following up with more information in future Assessments. The copy will be revised for the table of contents pages, etc. after we finish the draft stage. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me. Thanks, Amy

1 0

Fwd: E&E: White House greenlights EPA power plant rules
by Jim Sconyers 20 Dec '11

20 Dec '11

---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Fred Heutte <phred(a)sunlightdata.com> Date: Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 2:17 PM Subject: E&E: White House greenlights EPA power plant rules To: COAL-CAMPAIGN-ALERTS(a)lists.sierraclub.org White House greenlights EPA power plant rules Gabriel Nelson, E&E reporter Published: Tuesday, December 20, 2011 U.S. EPA's new rules for toxic emissions from coal- and oil- burning power plants have been cleared for release by the White House Office of Management and Budget. Friday was the deadline for EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson to sign the final standards, which would set the first federal limits on chemicals such as mercury, acid gases and dioxins. After a two-month review that included about 20 meetings at the White House, the agency has permission to release them, according to a change made today to a White House rulemaking database. That step usually signals the imminent release of a rule, and several sources briefed on the standards said they expect EPA to come out with them soon. Yet the agency has kept mum. "We will make details available when we are ready to make an announcement," an EPA spokeswoman wrote in an email. "As we have made clear, any standard will maximize flexibilities, while providing extensive public health protections from dangerous pollutants." The White House finished reviewing two rules Friday. One is the "appropriate and necessary finding," which says toxic emissions from coal- and oil-fired plants have measurable health effects that justify subjecting all plants to an emissions standard. After reaching that conclusion, which EPA first did in 2000, the agency must set emissions limits based on maximum achievable control technology (MACT) already in use. The White House also gave the agency permission to release the MACT standards, which have gotten push-back from some coal- burning utilities because they would drive hundreds of plants to undergo major renovations or shut down over the next several years. House Republicans passed a bill this fall that would delay the rules, loosen their requirements and give power companies more time to add pollution controls. Sen. James Inhofe, the Oklahoma Republican who leads his party on the Environment and Public Works Committee, says he, too, will introduce a resolution to nullify the rules after their release. Paul Billings, vice president for national policy and advocacy at the American Lung Association, said he expects EPA to release the rules soon. Under the settlement, the agency has five business days from this past Friday to submit the finalized rule for publication in the Federal Register. EPA says curbing toxic emissions would have a wide range of health benefits, including stopping thousands of people from dying each year by cleaning up soot from power plants. "The rule should be released so the public can see the benefits," Billings said. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 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 -- Jim Sconyers jimscon(a)gmail.com 304.698.9628 Remember, Mother Nature bats last.

1 0

Targeting First Energy Power Plants - Strategy Session
by Jim Sconyers 18 Dec '11

18 Dec '11

Folks - We are embarking on an exciting campaign, with a huge potential payoff. - First Energy's (Mon Power, Potomac Edison parent) Albright, Rivesville, and Willow Island coal-burning power plants are our target. - Retiring these plants is our goal. - Creating public awareness and support are essential. Some developments coming along mean that the time is now for us to get moving. We want to set a major public event for mid-January - which is a lot sooner than it sounds. You are invited - very warmly! - to a planning session. This is a new venture, and we *need* your ideas and energy to make this a success. Planning session: Sunday, December 18, 1:00 - 3:00 (+/-) PM Jim Kotcon's/Candice Elliott's home in Morgantown (414 Tyrone Avery Road). <directions below> This link is a google map just to show where these three First Energy plants are. http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?msa=0&msid=216452375754882078896.0004a28d682… *Directions to Jim and Candice’s home* >From I-68, Exit 7, take Rt 857 North 1.0 mile. Turn right onto Tyrone Avery Road. Go 1.0 mile (watch for a sharp right followed by a sharp left at 0.7 miles, be sure to take that left). Look for 4 mailboxes and a utility pole on the right, just before our driveway. Come up the gravel drive to the second house on the right. If you need directions help day of the meeting keep this phone number handy: Jim Kotcon/Candice Elliot 304.594.3322 -- Jim Sconyers jimscon(a)gmail.com 304.698.9628 Remember, Mother Nature bats last.

8 11

Fwd: Rep. Capito voted for Keystone XL
by Paul Wilson 15 Dec '11

15 Dec '11

fyi, paul ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Elijah Zarlin, CREDO Action <act(a)credoaction.com> Date: Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 11:07 AM Subject: Rep. Capito voted for Keystone XL To: Paul Wilson <pjgrunt(a)gmail.com> ** [image: CREDO Action] *Hold Rep. Capito accountable for voting for the Keystone XL end run.<http://act.credoaction.com/call?tg=FHWV_02&cp_id=182&id=32098-3414728-CygGT…> * [image: Take action!]<http://act.credoaction.com/call?tg=FHWV_02&cp_id=182&id=32098-3414728-CygGT…> * Rep. Capito needs to hear an earful for voting yesterday to force approval of the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline. Call her now. Click here for an easy script and number to call. <http://act.credoaction.com/call?tg=FHWV_02&cp_id=182&id=32098-3414728-CygGT…> * [image: Take action now!]<http://act.credoaction.com/call?tg=FHWV_02&cp_id=182&id=32098-3414728-CygGT…> Dear Paul, Yesterday, House Republicans, including Rep. Capito, voted to force approval of the Keystone XL Pipeline — at the expense of working families and the unemployed. * With the clock ticking on the year-end deadline to extend the payroll tax cut and unemployment benefits, Republicans are using this urgency to try to force approval of Keystone XL, and additionally to gut Clean Air Act protections against mercury and other toxic air pollution.* Even with everything we've seen from this congress, Rep. Capito's vote yesterday was a stunning declaration of her allegiance to the fossil fuel industry — and we need to hold her accountable. * Call Rep. Capito and hold her accountable for putting the dirty Keystone XL pipeline ahead of American families. Click here for an easy script and number to call.<http://act.credoaction.com/call?tg=FHWV_02&cp_id=182&id=32098-3414728-CygGT…> * The Republicans' are once again playing chicken with much needed benefits on the eve of their expiration by forcing these "poison pills" into the payroll-tax and unemployment benefits extension bill. To his credit, President Obama sent a strong message when he threatened to veto the bill before the vote, and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid also drew a line in the sand, telling Republicans that he would halt negotiations on another important year end-spending bill unless Republicans dropped their giveaways to Big Oil and King Coal. Even the State Department, which has restarted their evaluation of Keystone XL, condemned the Republicans' efforts, saying that the 60 days to issue a decision as mandated by Republicans would allow insufficient time to conduct their restarted evaluation of the project. * Still, Republicans are rabid to approve Keystone XL, no matter the cost — to our health, or to the economic stability of millions of Americas.* As negotiations move to the Senate, we need a massive show of opposition to hold Rep. Capito accountable for this irresponsible vote. Call her now: * http://act.credoaction.com/call?tg=FHWV_02&cp_id=182&id=32098-3414728-CygGT… * Thank you for fighting Keystone XL. Elijah Zarlin, Campaign Manager CREDO Action from Working Assets <http://act.credoaction.com/r/?r=11&id=32098-3414728-CygGTIx&t=7> [image: Take action now!]<http://act.credoaction.com/call?tg=FHWV_02&cp_id=182&id=32098-3414728-CygGT…> To remove yourself (Paul Wilson) from this list, please visit our subscription management page at: http://act.credoaction.com/s?i=32098-3414728-CygGTIx To change your email address or update your contact info, please visit: http://act.credoaction.com/subscrip/coa.html?id=32098-3414728-CygGTIx This is a message from CREDO / Working Assets. © 2011 CREDO. All rights reserved. Questions? Send us an email <info(a)credoaction.com> or write us at: 101 Market Street, Suite 700, San Francisco, CA 94105. -- 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

Fwd: From Greenwire -- OIL AND GAS: Protecting oil from water -- the history of state regulation
by James Kotcon 14 Dec '11

14 Dec '11

>>> <paula.carrell(a)sierraclub.org> 12/14/2011 1:35 PM >>> E-mail this story, sponsored by American Energy Innovation Council ************** OIL AND GAS: Protecting oil from water -- the history of state regulation (Wednesday, December 14, 2011) TOWANDA, Pa. -- A thin smile crept across Tony Tripp's face when reporters started asking him about the rules for gas drilling in Pennsylvania and West Virginia. "A lot of things aren't required in West Virginia," Tripp, foreman of the 92-foot drill rig rumbling a few feet away, told journalists on an industry-sponsored tour of drill sites here. "I kinda like working there." Randy Huffman, no doubt, would like to disagree. As secretary of the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection, he is the top environmental official in the state and an ardent defender of states' ability to regulate drilling. But even he has to admit West Virginia's laws are hopelessly out of date. SPECIAL REPORT A new wave of drilling, fueled by the practice some call "fracking," is promising prosperity and energy security for the country. E&E investigates whether anyone is ensuring it's done right. Click here to read the report. Standing in his shirt-sleeves in an elementary school cafeteria last June before a crowd of drilling opponents in Morgantown, W.Va., Huffman explained that the state's regulatory structure is 80 years old. It was designed with small, shallow gas wells in mind, not 5-acre industrial sites with hundreds of trucks hauling millions of gallons of water for hydraulic fracturing. "Quite frankly, our regulatory structure is not prepared to deal with it," Huffman said as the sun set on a pleasant mountain evening. "All of a sudden we have, basically, a brand new industry that shows up on the scene. We see a lot of things, that quite frankly, the state was not prepared for." It's not prepared, even though companies have been drilling the state's Marcellus Shale for six years now. Lawmakers failed to reach agreement on an update last spring. This week, they will try again in a special session. West Virginia is one of the starker examples of a state regulatory system developed before World War II trying to keep up, or catch up, with the drilling boom taking place across the United States. Eighty years ago, state officials were worried that water would pollute oil, not the other way around. Today, they are under increasing pressure to keep drinking water clean even as they promote the oil and gas production that delivers jobs and tax revenues amid a steady flow of economic woes. Today's drilling revival stretches from upstate New York to Southern California, bringing oil and gas production to new areas and more intense drilling to areas where it had been on the decline. The revival is being propelled by advances in the technology of hydraulic fracturing that enables operators to squeeze gas and oil from solid rock. Drill bits can burrow a mile below ground, then turn and tunnel sideways for another mile or more. Crews blast millions of gallons of chemical-laced water through the pipes to "fracture" the rock and release gas from the pores of the shale formation. In the last decade, there has been a twelvefold increase in shale gas production, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. Still, plays like the Marcellus Shale in Pennsylvania and West Virginia are in their infancy. Regulatory roots in 1930s oil boom Attempts by state oil and gas agencies to deal with the pace of this production have varied dramatically. Pennsylvania has repeatedly added new rules, often to address new problems that caused an uproar. New York, where opposition is the strongest, sought to avoid playing catch-up by putting a hold on development while it prepared for the industry. West Virginia headed off some of the problems that Pennsylvania had with disposal of the salty, sometimes toxic, wastewater created by the fracturing process. But it still lacks basic protections, such as requirements to line wastewater pits at well sites. In Texas, where drilling is marching toward suburbs and cities, a state legislative panel recommended a "fundamental restructuring" of the oil and gas agency. But the Legislature declined to act. In Colorado, a wave of drilling early in the last decade led to an overhaul of the state's oil and gas agency that reduced industry influence and spawned new rules. To understand the current state of oil and gas regulation, it is helpful to look back to the 1930s, when state and federal governments and some oil companies had a now-forgotten worry -- too much domestic production of oil. Drillers would often mob new oil finds. They would sink wells as fast as they could to prevent rivals from siphoning off the oil from a lease next door. When the oil stopped flowing fast, they would abandon the wells and leave the harder-to-get oil in the ground. That caused tremendous peaks and valleys in prices as new fields were discovered and depleted. After years of wrangling, state and federal government imposed a system of "conservation." At the time, that word wasn't the synonym for "environmentalism" it has become. Instead, it meant preventing "waste" of petroleum by getting it all out of the ground. States created "oil conservation commissions" to regulate production and prop up prices. Texas' panel, oddly enough named the Railroad Commission, would later become the model for the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries. Regulators didn't worry about oil polluting the groundwater. "The focus was on protection of the petroleum resource from the effects of water incursion, and not on protection of water resources themselves," according to a history of oil and gas rules by the Ground Water Protection Council (GWPC), an organization of state regulators that works closely with industry. "The protection of groundwater from pollution was carried as a secondary consideration in most regulations." The regulators didn't worry much about the people who owned the land over the oil, either. "Most oil producers of the early period [before 1935] believed that royalty payments to the landowner for the privilege of extracting oil or gas from beneath their land adequately compensated the landowner for any surface and water resource damages caused to the property," the GWPC report says. "Pollution of ground water ... was not a concept widely understood by the oil industry, landowners or state regulatory agencies." 'They are not environmental agencies' After World War II and through the 1960s, the report says, environmental protection efforts developed "sporadically." As the 1970s began, the environmental movement spurred state and federal governments to take a second look at the harm inflicted by industries, including oil and gas. That is when U.S. EPA was created, major federal environmental laws were passed and many states created their own "environmental protection" or "environmental quality" departments. But the '70s also marked the decline in domestic oil production, as oil majors headed offshore and overseas to find new supplies. In the years since, the oil and gas industry won exemptions from portions of several landmark federal environmental laws, arguing that states had the expertise to adjust for local conditions. At the state level, oil and gas agencies took responsibility for enforcing many of the environmental and health laws, both federal and state, as they applied to petroleum production. "The industry argued, 'We already have an agency that understands well spacing, and other technical aspects,' so they ought to take care of this as well," said Jacqueline Lang Weaver, a law professor at the University of Houston and co-author of a treatise on Texas oil and gas law. "They are not environmental agencies. That's not what they're set up for." Today, many of those agencies that were in charge of controlling production are now responsible for protecting people and the environment from the industrial hazards of the industry. In the 1990s, some updated their rules on waste pits and well construction. Oklahoma and others formalized their penalty systems to address repeat offenders. And many states set up programs to cap abandoned wells. The GWPC report, released in 2009, asserts that state regulators had environmental oversight of oil and gas in hand. "Although current state oil and gas regulatory programs for water and environmental resource protection vary in scope and specificity," the report says, "they invariably have the common elements necessary to ensure the development of oil and natural gas resources is accomplished in a manner designed to protect water resources." But two years later, states such as West Virginia have not developed ways to protect their roads or their air or to assess the full range of effects that come with large-scale drilling. "Our program has not really evolved, not many in the country have evolved to a point of considering the total impact of all the activity that's going on in a given area," West Virginia environment chief Huffman told the crowd in Morgantown. "That would be a pretty significant shift in our way of thinking, but I think it's the place that we're headed." In Texas, a review by a state legislative panel found the Railroad Commission took enforcement action on less than 1 percent of water-protection violations and said the agency had a history of lax enforcement against drillers. In Pennsylvania, the heart of the boom, state officials raised fees, more than doubled the number of well inspectors and created new rules to control where drillers got water for fracturing and how they disposed of it. But state geologists have testified they spend as little as 35 minutes on each well permit and are not familiar with requirements to look at how the operation might affect nearby streams. And Pennsylvania moved to prevent radiation-laced wastewater from getting into streams only after a New York Times story prompted EPA to start asking questions (Greenwire, March 8). Review program languishes Despite the boom in drilling, one of the most widely touted methods for states to improve their regulatory program is suffering from disuse. A program called STRONGER, for "State Review of Oil and Natural Gas Environmental Regulations," is designed to serve as a sort of peer-review process for state regulators. It also includes representatives of industry and environmental groups. But STRONGER hasn't conducted a full review of a state regulatory program since 2007. Reviews are voluntary, and the organization's leaders say states have been unwilling to put themselves under the microscope. Instead, it has concentrated on narrower reviews of a few states' rules on the hydraulic fracturing process. West Virginia has not been reviewed since 2003. Pennsylvania had its fracturing rules evaluated in 2010. But its full oil and gas program hasn't been looked at since 2004, before the first Marcellus well was drilled. "There's been a real reluctance to be reviewed," said Wilma Subra, an environmental scientist from Louisiana who sits on the STRONGER board. Industry itself is reducing its use of controversial "wastewater pits." Landowners don't like them, and in the less-than-arid climate of the Northeast, they tend to fill up with rainwater. And at some sites, with wellbores extending for miles, there is just too much stuff to bury it all. It is not states requiring well operators to use such methods as the "closed-loop" system on Tripp's rig, which stores drilling fluids in steel tanks instead of open pits. "They figure it's coming," explained Tripp, who has been drilling oil and gas wells for decades. In West Virginia, Gov. Earl Ray Tomblin (D) imposed new "emergency" rules on drilling a few weeks after Huffman spoke in Morgantown. The rules required public disclosure of fracturing chemicals and ordered public notice to be given when companies propose wells in incorporated cities and towns. That responded to some of the complaints Huffman was confronted with in June. The school was just uphill from a new Marcellus Shale well that was going up within the city limits of Morgantown, surprising many city leaders concerned about the purity of their water supply. But the emergency rules did not offer public notice for wells in unincorporated areas. And they did not address what happens when property owners have conflicts with drilling companies. This week, they will try to move from emergency rules to permanent laws. Tomblin called a special session of the Legislature to pass a bill initiated by a special subcommittee. The governor's bill would increase permit fees and require wells (but not well pads) to be 650 feet from homes, instead of 200 feet. If it gets through, the measure will be the first major revision in the state's oil and gas law since the Marcellus boom began. In an interview, Huffman said that when the process is viewed in a historical context, the state is moving relatively rapidly to deal with its new industry. "This is as responsive as you've ever seen to a new technology," Huffman said. "We mined coal for 70 years before we regulated it. We're ahead of the game."

1 0

Fwd: Alpha agrees to $50 million for selenium treatment
by Paul Wilson 14 Dec '11

14 Dec '11

kudos to JIm S for a great quote. fyi, paul ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Verena Owen <verena_owen(a)prodigy.net> Date: Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 5:44 PM Subject: Alpha agrees to $50 million for selenium treatment To: COAL-CAMPAIGN-ALERTS(a)lists.sierraclub.org Alpha agrees to $50 million for selenium treatmentDecember 12, 2011 by Ken Ward Jr. <http://blogs.wvgazette.com/coaltattoo/files/2011/06/ALPHA627.jpg> This just in from the Sierra Club: *Today, a coalition of conservation and environmental groups completed a legal settlement with Alpha Natural Resources over high levels of selenium output at several of the company’s West Virginia coal mines. The settlement requires that the coal mining company – formerly Massey Energy — begin construction of selenium treatment facilities with an estimated construction cost of over $50 million, and to pay penalties of $4.5 million. The suit was brought by the West Virginia Chapter of the Sierra Club, West Virginia Highlands Conservancy, Ohio Valley Environmental Coalition, and Coal River Mountain Watch.* *“This settlement will require Alpha to pay their due and start addressing the damage done to West Virginia waterways,” said Jim Sconyers, Chair of the West Virginia Chapter of the Sierra Club. “This settlement reflects another step in our fight to ensure that coal companies act responsibly in regards to the health of surrounding communities and West Virginia’s wild lands.”* *The settlement requires Alpha to immediately begin installing treatment technology to bring selenium discharges within acceptable levels. The proposed date of final compliance for the settlement is July 1, 2014 for all mines affected to ensure Alpha has time to install treatment facilities and make any necessary adjustments. Alpha will be subject to significant penalties for any violations that occur after the compliance date for each source of pollution. The vast majority of the penalties will go to the West Virginia Land Trust.* *“This settlement, which follows recent agreements with Arch Coal<http://blogs.wvgazette.com/coaltattoo/2011/10/03/details-of-arch-coal-selen…> and Patriot Coal,<http://blogs.wvgazette.com/coaltattoo/2010/08/31/judge-chambers-orders-patr…> proves that coal mines in West Virginia have the ability to treat their selenium problems,” said Dianne Bady with the Ohio Valley Environmental Coalition. “Now it’s time for all coal companies to take similar actions.”* *“Although treatment may be sufficient to address these existing selenium problems, ultimately the industry and regulators need to recognize that it’s not appropriate to mine coal seams that are high in selenium,” said Cindy Rank with the West Virginia Highlands Conservancy.* *Selenium, a toxic element that causes reproductive failure and deformities in fish and other forms of aquatic life, is discharged from many surface coal-mining operations across Appalachia. At very high levels, selenium can pose a risk to human health, causing hair and fingernail loss, kidney and liver damage, and damage to the nervous and circulatory systems.* *“The West Virginia DEP should be ashamed that citizen groups are doing what the agency should have done years ago,” said Vernon Haltom, executive director of Coal River Mountain Watch. “Instead, it’s left to citizen groups to take action to protect West Virginia’s streams and communities.”* *The settlement was lodged with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia<http://wvgazette.com/static/coal%20tattoo/AlphaSeleniumConsentDecree.pdf>. The U.S. government will have an opportunity to review the settlement before its terms take effect.* * * <http://addthis.com/bookmark.php?v=250&username=xa-4d2b47597ad291fb> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 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

re; 10 Greediest Americans in 2011 and guess who rolls in on the Number 2 spot?
by Paul Wilson 13 Dec '11

13 Dec '11

http://www.otherwords.org/articles/the_10_greediest_americans_of_2011 -- 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: NYT #1 (Uhlmann - For 29 Dead Miners, No Justice)
by James Kotcon 12 Dec '11

12 Dec '11

>From my father-in-law. This is not quite the "spin" I have been hearing from West Virginia news sources. Over 80 % of Massey's "penalties" will be tax deductible? JBK >>> "Bob Elliott" <rdelliott(a)socal.rr.com> 12/12/2011 1:21 AM >>> Subject: NYT #1 (Uhlmann - For 29 Dead Miners, No Justice) <http://www.nytimes.com/> <http://www.nytimes.com/> The New York Times <http://www.nytimes.com/> _____ December 9, 2011 For 29 Dead Miners, No Justice By DAVID M. UHLMANN Ann Arbor, Mich. EARLY on April 5, 2010, in the heart of West Virginia <http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/c/coal/index.h…> coal country, a huge explosion killed 29 workers at <http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/business/companies/massey-energy-company…> Massey Energy’s Upper Big Branch Mine. Later that day, President Obama directed Labor Secretary Hilda L. Solis to conduct “the most thorough and comprehensive investigation possible” and to work with the Justice Department to investigate any criminal violations. On Tuesday, the Labor Department issued a 972-page report on the calamity — the nation’s worst mining disaster in 40 years. It concluded that Massey’s “unlawful policies and practices” were the “root cause of this tragedy.” It identified over 300 violations of the Mine Safety and Health Act, including nine flagrant violations that contributed to the explosion. The scathing findings probably came as no surprise in West Virginia, where Massey had a well-earned reputation for putting miners at risk, breaking unions and polluting the environment. However, what jumped off the pages for me, as a former federal prosecutor, was the revelation that Massey had kept two sets of books at the mine: one for internal use, which recorded hazards, and a second for Mine Safety and Health Administration inspectors, which did not. In addition, Massey routinely gave its facilities advance notice of inspections, which is a crime under federal law, and intimidated its workers so that they would not report safety and health violations. Based on the Labor Department’s investigation, the Justice Department could have criminally prosecuted Massey under the Mine Safety and Health Act for the violations that caused the explosion. Prosecutors also could have charged the company with conspiracy and obstruction of justice for the ways it thwarted regulation. Instead, on the same day the devastating report was released, the Justice Department announced that it would not criminally prosecute Massey. The news release issued by the United States attorney misleadingly described its nonprosecution agreement with Massey’s new owners as “the largest ever criminal resolution in a mining investigation.” Let’s be clear: this is not a criminal resolution. Massey will not be charged with any crimes and will not plead guilty before a federal judge. Nor will there be a sentencing hearing where Massey apologizes to the families of the victims and is punished for its crimes. The deal with Massey continues a disturbing trend whereby corporations can avoid criminal prosecution by entering deferred prosecution or nonprosecution agreements. Often the terms of these agreements are no better than what could have been achieved in a criminal case; worse, they create the appearance that justice can be bought. Moreover, there is less to this settlement than meets the eye. The $209 million settlement requires payment of $35 million in previously assessed administrative penalties, but that sum includes just $10.8 million for the Upper Big Branch Mine tragedy. The remaining $174 million is likely to be tax deductible, including $80 million for investments in safety and infrastructure at Massey mines and an additional $48 million to establish a mine health and safety trust fund. Even the most laudable aspect of the deal — the agreement to pay $46.5 million in restitution to the families of the victims — is illusory. Massey already had agreed to pay $16.5 million to settle lawsuits brought by the families. The remaining $30 million will be paid into a fund for future settlements, which effectively caps the amount the families can recover. And, to add insult to injury, the Justice Department agreed that Massey would admit no wrongdoing. So why did the Justice Department respond so timidly? Perhaps it felt hamstrung by the weakness of the criminal provisions of the Mine Safety and Health Act, which are misdemeanors and cover only willful violations of health and safety standards. It is long past time for Congress to update our mine safety laws so that violations can be prosecuted as felonies, particularly in cases where miners are killed. Maybe the Justice Department wanted to reward the new owners, who appear to have made a greater commitment to safety. It may also have felt it would be enough to criminally prosecute Massey officials, which it can and should do if there is sufficient evidence. We should not underestimate, however, the difficulty of prosecuting high-ranking officials in large corporations. This case may be an exception, but senior corporate officers rarely have sufficient personal involvement to be charged with crimes. To reach the boardroom, where policies are formed that can lead to tragedy, we must be willing to hold corporations criminally responsible. During my 17 years at the Justice Department, we prosecuted corporations criminally in hundreds of cases that, while serious, did not involve the tragic loss of life at the Upper Big Branch Mine. The Justice Department did not live up to its name in agreeing not to prosecute Massey for its crimes. We can only hope that when it comes to the other unfathomable disaster that took place in April 2010, the BP <http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/o/oil_spills/g…> oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, justice will be better served. <http://web.law.umich.edu/_facultybiopage/facultybiopagenew.asp?ID=385> David M. Uhlmann, a law professor at the University of Michigan, was chief of the environmental crimes section at the Justice Department from 2000 to 2007.

1 0

Fwd: Location for Mountain Justice Spring Break Camp; March 2012
by Jim Sconyers 08 Dec '11

08 Dec '11

---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Dave Cooper <davecooper928(a)yahoo.com> Date: Thu, Dec 8, 2011 at 2:13 PM Subject: Location for Mountain Justice Spring Break Camp; March 2012 To: Vivian Stockman <vivian(a)ohvec.org>, Carol Warren <cwarren1(a)citlink.net>, Cindy Rank <clrank2(a)gmail.com>, Bob Hamburg <anomalous(a)citilink.net>, Bob Henry Baber <wvapoet(a)richwoodwv.com>, Denise Poole <deniseap(a)earthlink.net>, Julian Martin <martinjul(a)aol.com>, Kathryn Stone <XKatwalkx(a)aol.com>, Janet Keating <janet.ovec(a)gmail.com>, katey lauer < katey.lauer(a)theallianceforappalachia.org>, Winter Ross <wintersweb(a)gmail.com>, Frank Young <fyoung(a)mountain.net>, John McFerrin <johnmcferrin(a)aol.com>, Chuck Wyrostock <wyro(a)appalight.com>, Jim Sconyers <jimscon(a)gmail.com>, Wally Eve Mastropaolo <wemast5(a)juno.com>, Bev Braverman <mwa(a)mtwatershed.com>, Mimi Filippelli <mimi(a)coalfieldjustice.org> Hi all, We are looking for a location to hold the Mountain Justice Spring Break (MJSB) camp in northern WV in mid-March 2012. This year's camp will focus on the mt top removal AND fracking issues and we hope to bring together activists from PA and the northeast states working on fracking issues together with the MTR activists in WV, KY VA etc. MJSB will be mostly college students, mostly from out of state. Last year MJSB was in Alabama. We have not yet found a location for the camp. We want to be close to MTR, fracking and/ or strip mining sites. Here is what we are looking for: * Space that can hold about 100 people for 1 week. * We need a big main lodge room (preferably) that is heated for speakers and workshops * Need a pretty big kitchen and dining room. * Place for people to sleep. Some can sleep in tents, some can sleep on the floor. We cant afford to rent anything very nice - about $1000-2000 will be our budget for lodging/facility rental for the whole week. * We want to cook our own food; we cant afford to pay any camp staff to cook (and their food is usually not very good anyways). * They have to be willing to host us - some of the church camps etc. are a little nervous about Mountain Justice because we are such very scary people In other words, something like the Folklife Center (Pipestem) would be ideal; it just needs to be in the northern part of the state. If anyone has any ideas for a location, please email me back. We hope to work with OVEC and WVHC and CRMW and other groups on this camp (speakers needed!) but we are still in the early planning stages. Boy Scout/Girl Scout/Church Camp/Band Camp/4-H Camp would all probably work OK. Even a church building would probably work OK, if they would let us sleep there. Ive put in an inquiry to Camp Mountaineer (Boy Scouts) already. If anyone can tell me about Camp Pioneer 4-H camp that would be appreciated also. The Mountain Institute is a possibility - Ive talked to them in the past - but seems like a long shot. Wheeling or Morgantown or heck, maybe even Parkersburg? Ideally we would be closer to Pittsburgh. Thanks everyone. Dave Cooper The Mountaintop Removal Road Show www.mountainroadshow.com -- Jim Sconyers jimscon(a)gmail.com 304.698.9628 Remember, Mother Nature bats last.

1 0

EXXON NAT GAS PREDICTION
by William V. DePaulo, Esq. 08 Dec '11

08 Dec '11

- BUSINESS<http://online.wsj.com/public/search?article-doc-type=%7BBusiness%7D&HEADER_…> - DECEMBER 8, 2011 Exxon Declares Gas King Abundant Fuel Expected to Dethrone Coal as Top U.S. Power Generator by 2025 By TOM FOWLER<http://online.wsj.com/search/term.html?KEYWORDS=TOM+FOWLER&bylinesearch=true> Natural gas will replace coal as the leading fuel for generating electricity in the U.S. by 2025, when it will also become the world's No. 2 overall fuel source thanks to its abundance and a drive for cleaner-burning energy, according to the latest long-term outlook from Exxon Mobil<http://online.wsj.com/public/quotes/main.html?type=djn&symbol=XOM>Corp. Bloomberg News An XTO natural-gas facility in 2006. Exxon expects gas to be the No. 2 global fuel source by the next decade. The closely watched study, set to be released Thursday, forecasts that global energy demand will grow about 30% by 2040 as the world population climbs to nine billion from seven billion. Natural gas will overtake coal as the second-largest fuel source overall, ranking behind oil and powering everything from electrical plants to home-heating systems. But Exxon said coal use will continue to grow through 2025 around the world, primarily in developing nations such as China and India and the African continent, because economic growth will be fastest in emerging nations. But thereafter coal use will start to drop, for the first time in history, according to the study, which Exxon uses to help its long-range planning. Key drivers in that expected drop in coal use will be growing demand for fuels that produce fewer greenhouse gases and a decline in China's population expected after 2030. Exxon in recent years has moved to expand its natural-gas business, including the $25 billion purchase of U.S. shale-gas producer XTO Energy in 2010. [image: [EXXON]] But the report isn't a public-relations exercise, said Bill Colton, Exxon's vice president of corporate strategic planning, who oversees the report. "It's not about the future Exxon might like to see, but what we think will happen," Mr. Colton said. "The last thing we want to do is delude ourselves about the future." Exxon has created a world-energy outlook for decades to help guide its many business units in long-term planning, but it wasn't until 2004 that the oil major, based in Irving, Texas, decided to publish it. The report doesn't predict energy production or forecast prices. The report is bullish on overall global economic growth and accompanying energy-demand growth through 2040, Mr. Colton said, in spite of the economic problems in the U.S. and Europe. Energy-demand growth in developed nations is expected to be modest in coming years and actually fall 2% overall from 2010 to 2040, thanks largely to efficiency improvements, Exxon predicts. But developing nations will see energy demand grow 57% through 2040, with demand for electricity expected to grow by 80% as the standard of living improves, the report projected. The report also predicts that between 2030 and 2040 hybrid vehicles—cars that use a combination of gasoline engines and electric motors—will move from the margins of the market to the mainstream, from about 1% of the current fleet to more than 40% in 2040. Overall vehicle-fuel efficiency will grow from 27 miles per gallon in 2010 to 48 mpg in 2040, according to Exxon. This will lead to a flattening of fuel demand for passenger cars despite a doubling of the fleet to 1.6 billion vehicles by 2040. Demand for fuel by large trucks, airplanes, ships and trains will rise by 70% from 2010 to 2040, however, driven by world economic growth and the need to move more global cargo. Global demand for diesel is expected to rise by 85% through 2040, while gasoline demand will be down 10% by 2040. -- William V. DePaulo, Esq. 179 Summers Street, Suite 232 Charleston, WV 25301-2163 Tel 304-342-5588 Fax 304-342-5505 william.depaulo(a)gmail.com www.passeggiata.com

1 0

from ScienceDaily e-newsletter: Solar Power Much Cheaper to Produce Than Most Analysts Realize, Study Finds
by Paul Wilson 08 Dec '11

08 Dec '11

Science News Save<http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/12/111207132916.htm?utm_source=fe…> Email<http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/12/111207132916.htm?utm_source=fe…> Print<http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/12/111207132916.htm?utm_source=fe…> Share<http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/12/111207132916.htm?utm_source=fe…> Solar Power Much Cheaper to Produce Than Most Analysts Realize, Study Finds ScienceDaily (Dec. 7, 2011) — The public is being kept in the dark about the viability of solar photovoltaic energy, according to a study conducted at Queen's University. ------------------------------ ** "Many analysts project a higher cost for solar photovoltaic energy because they don't consider recent technological advancements and price reductions," says Joshua Pearce, Adjunct Professor, Department of Mechanical and Materials Engineering. "Older models for determining solar photovoltaic energy costs are too conservative." Dr. Pearce believes solar photovoltaic systems are near the "tipping point" where they can produce energy for about the same price other traditional sources of energy. Analysts look at many variables to determine the cost of solar photovoltaic systems for consumers, including installation and maintenance costs, finance charges, the system's life expectancy, and the amount of electricity it generates. Dr. Pearce says some studies don't consider the 70 per cent reduction in the cost of solar panels since 2009 . Furthermore, he says research now shows the productivity of top-of-the-line solar panels only drops between 0.1 and 0.2 percent annually, which is much less than the one per cent used in many cost analyses. Equipment costs are determined based on dollars per watt of electricity produced. One 2010 study estimated the this cost at $7.61, while a 2003 study set the amount at $4.16. According to Dr. Pearce, the real cost in 2011 is under $1 per watt for solar panels purchased in bulk on the global market, though he says system and installation costs vary widely. Dr. Pearce has created a calculator program available for download online that can be used to determine the true costs of solar energy. The Queen's study was co-authored by grad students Kadra Branker and Michael Pathak and published in the December edition of *Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews.* -- 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

Fwd: Beyond Coal stickers
by Jim Sconyers 07 Dec '11

07 Dec '11

Folks - Wanted to share these great stickers with you. Can print out on Avery labels. Wouldn't it be cool to start seeing them .....? ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Orli Cotel <orli.cotel(a)sierraclub.org> Date: Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 9:25 PM Subject: Beyond Coal stickers To: COAL-CAMPAIGN-ALERTS(a)lists.sierraclub.org Hi Coal-fighters, We've created some new stickers that can be used for the campaign if these are helpful to you - see attached. The image of the boy with the inhaler is a child named Peter from Chicago who lives near the coal plant there and has asthma - his mother gave us permission to use his image for these stickers. I hope these help bring inspiration for the hard work ahead - when we fight to replace coal plants with clean energy we are helping to protect kids like Peter everywhere. I'm attaching a file - these can be printed out on Avery labels in an office printer or at Kinkos. The exact size of the labels for each version is found at the bottom of each PDF page. Thanks for all that you're doing to help us move beyond coal! Best, Orli -- Orli Cotel Deputy Communications Director Sierra Club (415) 977-5627 office (646) 522-7751 cellphone - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 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 To view the Sierra Club List Terms & Conditions, see: http://www.sierraclub.org/lists/terms.asp -- Jim Sconyers jimscon(a)gmail.com 304.698.9628 Remember, Mother Nature bats last.

1 0

Fwd: a little good news
by James Kotcon 02 Dec '11

02 Dec '11

WOW!!!! Global investment in new electric generation facilities from renewables exceeded fossil fuels for the first time in 2010: $187 billion for wind, sun, waves and biomass versus $157 billion for natural gas, oil and coal. (Bloomberg New Energy Finance). Investment in renewables in developing nations will exceed that in developed countries (Europe, US and China) by 2020. Electricity from solar power will be cheaper than natural gas by 2015, and cheaper than coal by 2020 (MIT). Does this mean that the coal industry in WV will collapse within 10 years? JBK >>> Vickie Wolfe <ibtreehugger(a)gmail.com> 12/1/2011 9:18 PM >>> In case you haven't seen this: http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/11/26/376250/clean-energy-renewable-powe… -- ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` Vickie L. Wolfe PHONE: (304) 744-8777 E-MAIL: IBTreehugger(a)gmail.com ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` "It is horrifying that we have to fight our own government to save our environment." -Ansel Adams Read *Hot, Flat and Crowded* by Tom Friedman.

1 0

Fwd: Learning Too Late of Perils in Gas Well Leases
by Paul Wilson 02 Dec '11

02 Dec '11

fyi, paul ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Fran Hunt <fran.hunt(a)sierraclub.org> Date: Fri, Dec 2, 2011 at 11:04 AM Subject: Learning Too Late of Perils in Gas Well Leases To: CONS-AWL-RESILIENT-HABITATS(a)lists.sierraclub.org [image: image.png] Jared Ely near gas wells leased on his family's land near Dimock, Pa. His father, Scott, says the leases should have been clearer. DRILLING DOWN Learning Too Late of Perils in Gas Well Leases Ruth Fremson/The New York Times By IAN URBINA<http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/u/ian_urbina/ind…> and JO CRAVEN McGINTY<http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/m/jo_craven_mcgi…> Published: December 1, 2011 After Scott Ely and his father talked with salesmen from an energy company about signing the lease allowing gas drilling on their land in northeastern Pennsylvania, he said he felt certain it required the company to leave the property as good as new. So Mr. Ely said he was surprised several years later when the drilling company, Cabot Oil and Gas, informed them that rather than draining and hauling away the toxic drilling sludge stored in large waste ponds<http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2011/12/02/us/oil-and-gas-leases.html#br…> on the property, it would leave the waste, cover it with dirt and seed the area with grass. He knew that waste pond liners can leak, seeping contaminated waste. “I guess our terms should have been clearer” about requiring the company to remove the waste pits after drilling, said Mr. Ely, of Dimock, Pa., who sued Cabot after his drinking water from a separate property was contaminated. “We learned that the hard way.” Americans have signed millions of leases allowing companies to drill for oil and natural gas on their land in recent years. But some of these landowners — often in rural areas, and eager for quick payouts — are finding out too late what is, and what is not, in the fine print. Energy company officials say that standard leases include language that protects landowners. But a review of more than 111,000 leases, addenda and related documents by The New York Times<http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2011/12/02/us/oil-and-gas-leases.html> suggests otherwise: ¶ Fewer than half the leases require companies to compensate landowners for water contamination after drilling begins. And only about half the documents have language that lawyers suggest should be included to require payment for damages to livestock or crops<http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2011/12/02/us/oil-and-gas-leases.html#br…> . ¶ Most leases grant gas companies broad rights to decide where they can cut down trees, store chemicals, build roads and drill. Companies are also permitted to operate generators and spotlights through the night near homes during drilling. ¶ In the leases, drilling companies rarely describe to landowners the potential environmental and other risks that federal laws require them to disclose in filings to investors. ¶ Most leases are for three or five years, but at least two-thirds of those reviewed by The Times allow extensions<http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2011/12/02/us/oil-and-gas-leases.html#br…> without additional approval from landowners. If landowners have second thoughts about drilling on their land or want to negotiate for more money, they may be out of luck. The leases — obtained through open records requests — are mostly from gas-rich areas inTexas<http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2011/12/02/us/oil-and-gas-leases.html#br…>, but also in Maryland<http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2011/12/02/us/oil-and-gas-leases.html#br…> , New York<http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2011/12/02/us/oil-and-gas-leases.html#br…> , Ohio<http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2011/12/02/us/oil-and-gas-leases.html#br…> , Pennsylvania<http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2011/12/02/us/oil-and-gas-leases.html#br…> and West Virginia<http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2011/12/02/us/oil-and-gas-leases.html#br…> . In Pennsylvania, Colorado and West Virginia, some landowners have had to spend hundreds of dollars a month to buy bottled water or maintain large tanks, known as water buffaloes, for drinking water in their front yards. They said they learned only after the fact that the leases did not require gas companies to pay for replacement drinking water if their wells were contaminated, and despite state regulations, not all costs were covered. Thousands of landowners in Virginia, Pennsylvania and Texas have joined class action lawsuits claiming that they were paid less than they expected because gas companies deducted costs<http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2011/12/02/us/oil-and-gas-leases.html#br…> like hauling chemicals to the well site or transporting the gas to market. Some industry officials say the criticism of their business practices is misguided. Asked about the waste pits on Mr. Ely’s land in Pennsylvania, for example, George Stark, a Cabot spokesman, said the company’s cleanup measures met or exceeded state requirements. And the door-to-door salesmen, commonly known as landmen, who pitch the leases on behalf of the drilling companies also dismiss similar complaints from landowners, and say they do not mislead anyone. *The Sales Pitch* “There are bad leases out there, and, as with any industry, there have also been some unscrupulous opportunists,” said Mike Knapp, president of Knapp Acquisitions and Production, a company in western Pennsylvania that brokers deals between landowners and drilling companies. “But everyone I know who does this work is on the up and up, and most of the bad actors that there may have been before are no longer in business.” He said that his company’s leases ensure that landowners will get replacement water. The company also encourages landowners to visit an existing drilling site before signing a lease to get an idea of the potential noise and truck traffic. Some of the complaints about leases, he said, are just sour grapes from landowners who are envious about the amount of money they believe their neighbors are earning in bonuses and royalties. To be sure, many landowners have earned small fortunes from drilling leases. Last year, natural gas companies paid more than $1.6 billion in lease and bonus payments to Pennsylvania landowners, according to a report commissioned by the Marcellus Shale Coalition, an industry trade group. Chesapeake Energy, one of the largest natural gas companies, has paid more than $183.8 million in royalties in Texas this year, according to its Web site <http://www.chk.com/Pages/default.aspx>. Much of the money has gone to residents in rural areas where jobs are scarce and farmers and ranchers have struggled to stay afloat. Mr. Ely once worked for a company owned by Cabot on drilling sites in his area, until he was fired shortly after publicly complaining about Cabot’s drilling practices. But many landowners and lawyers say that gas companies are intentionally vague in their contracts and use high-pressure sales tactics on landowners. If you’ve never seen a good lease, or any lease, how are you supposed to know what terms to try to get in yours?” said Ron Stamets, a drilling proponent and a Web site developer in Lakewood, Pa., who started a consumer protection Web site, PAGasLease.com <http://pagaslease.com/>, in 2008 so that he could swap advice with his neighbors as he prepared to sign a gas lease. Others have also taken steps to better inform landowners about the details in leases. In the past several years, the attorneys general in New York, Ohio and Pennsylvania have published advisories about the pitfalls of leasing land for drilling. State regulations also provide protections to landowners above and beyond what is in their leases. At least eight states specifically require companies to compensate landowners for damage to their properties or to negotiate with them about where wells will be drilled, even if the lease does not provide those protections. Asked about the leases, officials from Exxon Mobil, the largest natural gas producer in the United States, declined to comment. *Protecting Landowners* Jim Gipson, a spokesman for Chesapeake Energy, said any claims of damage can be investigated by the state and federal authorities and, he added, noise or other disturbances that may come with drilling tend to be brief. “The most frequently asked question we receive from our mineral owners is, ‘When are you going to drill my well?’ ” he said. Mr. Gipson said that most leased properties do not end up having a well placed on them, so those leases do not need added protections. But some consumer advocates and lawyers say that protections are needed for all leased properties, even those without wells, because drilling may occur underneath them. These advocates also say that landowners’ eagerness to start earning royalties has made them vulnerable to deceptive tactics by landmen. “We’re in town until tomorrow,” the landmen typically say, according to interviews with more than two dozen landowners in Ohio, Texas and Pennsylvania. “We have already signed up all your neighbors.” The landmen then claim that if you do not sign right away you will miss out on easy income because other drillers will simply pull the gas from under your property using a well nearby. Some landmen show up in poorer areas shortly before the holidays, offering cash on the spot for signing a lease. They might offer thousands of dollars per acre as a bonus to be paid shortly after the lease is signed. Royalties, which usually run between 12.5 percent and 20 percent of what the companies make for selling the gas, can mean tens of thousands of dollars per year for landowners. Jack Richards, president of the American Association of Professional Landmen <http://www.landman.org/wcm/aapl/>, said his members follow a strict code of ethics. His organization also encourages landowners to ask questions before they sign leases, he said. “We promote open and honest communication between the landman and landowner before signing the lease,” he said, adding that the standard lease forms are written with some protections for landowners. Some leases, however, also include language that comes back to haunt landowners. “I thought I knew what the sentence meant,” said Dave Beinlich, describing a section that said that “preparation” to drill was enough to allow Chief Oil and Gas to extend the duration of his lease. In 2005, Mr. Beinlich and his wife, Karen, signed a lease for $2 an acre per year for five years on 117 acres in Sullivan County in north-central Pennsylvania. They soon realized they had gotten far less money than their neighbors, so they planned on negotiating a new lease when theirs expired in 2010. A day before their lease term ended, no well had been drilled on their land, but the gas company parked a bulldozer nearby and started to survey an access road. A company official informed them that by moving equipment to the site, Chief Oil and Gas was preparing to drill and was therefore allowed to extend the lease indefinitely. The Beinlichs have sued. Kristi Gittins, a vice president at Chief Oil and Gas, says that the company does not comment on pending litigation, but that its goal is to produce gas and it makes an honest attempt to develop the land it leases. Lease contracts work both ways,” she added. “Chief honors the terms of its lease contracts, and we expect the landowners who have signed the lease contract to honor the terms of the contract as well.” But lawyers say that drilling leases are not like other contracts. “You’re not buying a refrigerator or signing a car note,” said David McMahon, a lease lawyer in Charleston, W.Va., and co-founder of the West Virginia Surface Owners’ Rights Organization <http://www.wvsoro.org/>, adding that once a well is drilled, it can produce gas for decades, locking landowners into the lease terms. “With a gas lease, you’re permitting industrial activity in your backyard, and you’re starting a relationship that will affect the quality of living for you and your grandchildren for decades,” he said. Mr. McMahon and other lease lawyers say that unlike many contracts, oil and gas leases are covered by few consumer protection laws, in part because drilling has been most common in states with less regulation. *Clauses With Consequences* “When it comes to negotiation skills and understanding of lease terms, there is a gaping inequality between the average landman and the average citizen sitting across the table,” said Chris Csikszentmihalyi<http://www.media.mit.edu/people/csik>, a researcher at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology who created a Web site last year called the Landman Report Card<http://www.landmanreportcard.com/> that allows landowners to review landmen’s professionalism and tactics. Some lawyers also say that there are major differences between what drilling companies tell landowners and what they must disclose to investors. Under federal law, oil and gas companies must offer investors and federal regulators detailed descriptions of the most serious environmental and other risks related to drilling. But leases typically lack any mention of such risks. In New York, the duration of leases has been an especially contentious issue. As leases near expiration, some gas companies try to extend them, often by invoking “force majeure,” a legal term referring to an unforeseen event that prevents the two sides from fulfilling an agreement. In these instances, gas companies say the unforeseen event is the state’s repeated delays in releasing environmental regulations and issuing drilling permits. Force majeure clauses<http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2011/12/02/us/oil-and-gas-leases.html#br…> appear in as many as half the roughly 3,200 New York leases reviewed by The Times. Another important lease term is the Pugh Clause<http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2011/12/02/us/oil-and-gas-leases.html#br…>, said Lance Astrella, a lease lawyer in Denver. It is named after Lawrence Pugh, a Louisiana lawyer who started adding it to leases in 1947 to ensure that they would not be extended indefinitely without wells being drilled. Fewer than 20 percent of the more than 100,000 Texas leasing documents reviewed by The Times include such a clause, and very few of the leases from Maryland, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania and West Virginia include the language. While the leases collected by The Times represent a small fraction of the more than 8 million oil and gas leases in the United States, experts said they illustrated issues that landowners need to understand. Mr. Astrella said that leases also typically lacked a clause requiring drillers to pay for a test of the property’s well water<http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2011/12/02/us/oil-and-gas-leases.html#br…> before drilling started, and landowners often do not think to do the tests themselves. If drilling leads to problems with drinking wells, landowners have few options if they want to prove that their water was fine before drilling started. For some landowners, it can be a costly mistake. “It’s been one expense after another since our water went bad, and the company only has to cover part of it,” said Ronald Carter, 72, of Montrose, Pa. Mr. Carter and his wife, Jean, said they signed a lease in 2006 for a one-time fee of $25 per acre on their 75 acres andannual royalty payments<http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2011/12/02/us/oil-and-gas-leases.html#br…> of 12.5 percent. The Carters live on $3,500 a month, including the $1,500 per month they average in gas royalties. But they had to spend $7,000 to install a water purifier when their drinking supply became contaminated in 2009 after drilling near their property. The Carters joined a lawsuit with about a dozen neighbors, including Mr. Ely, accusing Cabot Oil and Gas of contaminating their drinking water. Mr. Stark, the Cabot spokesman, said that his company was not responsible for any water contamination in the area and that Cabot’s studies showed that the gas seepage into the drinking water was occurring naturally. “All the testing we have been able to conduct show the water meets federal safe drinking water standards,” Mr. Stark said. In 2009, Pennsylvania ordered Cabot to provide the affected residents with water. For the Carters, the company has paid for bottled water and for the installation of a water buffalo next to their trailer. Mr. Stark added that his company had offered to pay for treatment systems to remove gas if it leaked into their drinking water. Mr. Carter said that even though Cabot had paid to provide him with bottled water and a water buffalo, he can barely afford his electricity bill, which doubled because he has to heat the water buffalo to make sure it does not freeze. Those expenses may soon go up. On Wednesday, Cabot stopped delivering water to the Carters, the Elys and others in Dimock after state regulators said the company had satisfied requirements of a settlement agreement with the state. “It’s a little late now,” Mr. Carter said. “But there are a lot things I’d like to have done different with that lease.” Jeremy Ashkenas and Kitty Bennett contributed research. -- *Frances A. Hunt* Director, Resilient Habitats Campaign Sierra Club 50 F Street, NW Washington, DC 20001 fran.hunt(a)sierraclub.org 202-675-2386 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - To unsubscribe from the CONS-AWL-RESILIENT-HABITATS list, send any message to: CONS-AWL-RESILIENT-HABITATS-signoff-request(a)LISTS.SIERRACLUB.ORG Check out our Listserv Lists support site for more information: http://www.sierraclub.org/lists/faq.asp -- 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

Fwd: Key vote cancelled for Delaware River watershed gas drilling
by Paul Wilson 01 Dec '11

01 Dec '11

fyi, paul ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Fran Hunt <fran.hunt(a)sierraclub.org> Date: Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 3:55 PM Subject: Key vote cancelled for Delaware River watershed gas drilling To: CONS-AWL-RESILIENT-HABITATS(a)lists.sierraclub.org The New Jersey Sierra Club reported that there are 10,000 leases on hold in the basin that could move forward if the regulations are adopted. The National Park Service estimates 35,000 wells eventually could be constructed.... Anti-drilling forces claim victory in delay of Commission vote TRENTON, N.J. (AP) - A multistate agency that has spent years developing regulations for natural gas drilling in the Delaware River watershed abruptly canceled a key vote scheduled for Monday after two members announced their opposition. The Delaware River Basin Commission said Friday it was postponing a vote on hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, to give the agency's five commissioners more time to review the draft regulations. Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Corbett said he was disappointed by the latest delay, which he said happened because commission members disagreed on the regulation package. The DRBC said no new date had been set. "Pennsylvania is ready to move forward now," Corbett said in a statement released Friday. "We have demonstrated a willingness to compromise and to address issues brought forth by other members of the commission. We have worked with our commission partners in good faith, and it is disappointing to not have these efforts reciprocated." But New York's Attorney General, Eric Schneiderman, said an environmental risk-assessment is needed to win public confidence and ensure that the commission's actions are based on science. "This delay further demonstrates that the proposed regulations for fracking in the Delaware River Basin are not ready to see the light of day," Schneiderman said in a statement Friday. "Without a full, fair and open review of the potential risks of fracking in the basin, the public will continue to question the federal government's ability to protect public health and environment." The federal Environmental Protection Agency<http://www.stargazette.com/article/20111118/NEWS11/111180321/Key-gas-drilli…> is studying the effects of fracking, with a draft report due next year. The postponement of a vote came hours after Delaware Gov. Jack Markell told fellow commissioners he would not support the regulations because of concerns over drinking water protections. Earlier, New York announced it would vote no. New Jersey and Pennsylvania had not announced how they would vote, but it was believed both would vote yes. With two Democrats prepared to reject the rules and two Republicans signaling their support, passage would have been left to the fifth member, the Army Corps of Engineers. It's not known how the federal agency was planning to vote. The rules need three votes to pass, though the commission had hoped for unanimous, bipartisan support. Environmentalists saw victory in the delay, claiming an erosion of support by the commission. However, Marcellus Shale Coalition President Kathryn Klaber said she remained hopeful that the commission would adopt "common-sense regulations aimed at responsibly developing clean-burning, job-creating American natural gas in the region." Fracking involves injecting water, sand and chemicals into a gas well to crack surrounding shale thousands of feet underground so trapped natural gas can flow into the well. Environmentalists fear it could result in contamination of drinking water supplies. Because of that fear, New York regulators are proposing to ban fracking in the New York City and Syracuse watersheds. New York state has had a moratorium on fracking since regulators started an extensive environmental review in 2008. The state is now holding hearings on proposed regulations, which, if approved, could allow drilling next year. "We hope to work with DRBC to develop a regulatory program that reflects New York's 3½ years of study," said Emily DeSantis, spokeswoman for New York state's Department of EnvironmentalConservation<http://www.stargazette.com/article/20111118/NEWS11/111180321/Key-gas-drilli…> . New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie rejected legislation permanently banning fracking. The Democratic-controlled Legislature has not taken action on his recommendation for a one-year moratorium, though they may try to override the governor before recessing in mid-December. New Jersey has no Marcellus shale, so its interest in the issue revolves around water quality<http://www.stargazette.com/article/20111118/NEWS11/111180321/Key-gas-drilli…> . Christie's office declined to comment Friday. The commission manages water use for the Delaware River Basin, and environmentalists say the drilling would threaten drinking water for 15 million people. The proposed rules would allow 300 natural gas wells in the Delaware River Basin, followed by a commission review before more are phased in. The eventual total could reach many thousands of wells. The New Jersey Sierra Club reported that there are 10,000 leases on hold in the basin that could move forward if the regulations are adopted. The National Park Service estimates 35,000 wells eventually could be constructed. Pennsylvania already allows drilling outside the watershed area. Environmental groups have gathered more than 73,000 signatures on a petition opposing drilling in the watershed. -- *Frances A. Hunt* Director, Resilient Habitats Campaign Sierra Club 50 F Street, NW Washington, DC 20001 fran.hunt(a)sierraclub.org 202-675-2386 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - To unsubscribe from the CONS-AWL-RESILIENT-HABITATS list, send any message to: CONS-AWL-RESILIENT-HABITATS-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 -- 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

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

EC December 2011