- EC - lists.cheatlakeclear.org

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

WV Gas regs and WVEC lobby team input/efforts...
by Frank Young 16 Nov '11

16 Nov '11

Important reading for Sierra Club, WVEC and others who support the laudable efforts of WVEC lobby team --- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ http://blogs.wvgazette.com/watchdog/ W.Va. leaders ignored previous audits that warned of the state’s need for more gas drilling inspectors November 16, 2011 by Ken Ward Jr. UPDATED: The legislative committee on Marcellus Shale has approved the bill and asked for a special session to consider the measure. Long-time West Virginia political leaders like Sen. Joe Manchin (above) were making much earlier this week (see here and here) about how the state needs time to get a handle on the Marcellus Shale issue and put a proper regulatory system into place, making it clear they want federal officials to pretty much mind their own business. But on at least one crucial issue — whether the state Department of Environmental Protection has enough inspectors and other staff to do the job — West Virginia has had nearly 20 years to remedy the problem, and so far as done next to nothing. That’s the bottom line in a story we posted online last night. Headlined, State ignored previous warnings about drilling inspector shortage, the story explains: Long before most West Virginians had ever heard the words “Marcellus Shale,” outside auditors were warning that the state’s oil and gas regulatory agency was greatly underfunded and severely understaffed. In December 1993, a review by the Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission warned that lack of funding and a shortage of inspectors were among the chronic problems facing the state Department of Environmental Protection’s Office of Oil and Gas. “The OOG does not have enough inspectors or funding to fully meet its statutory mandate,” said the 98-page review report, written by a team of regulators from other states, industry officials and environmental group representatives. A decade later, another outside examination found that little had changed. The state oil and gas office still “does not have enough inspectors or funding to fully meet its statutory mandate,” said a 110-page report issued in January 2003. Don Garvin, lead lobbyist for the West Virginia Environmental Council, commented at Sen. Manchin’s Senate committee field hearing, held in Charleston on Monday: The best written rule is no good if you don’t have enforcement, if you don’t have inspectors in the field overseeing the operations. You can read the 1993 review of West Virginia’s oil and gas regulatory program here and the follow-up review done in 2003 here. __._,_.___ Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post | Start a New Topic Messages in this topic (1) Recent Activity: Visit Your Group Working since 1967 for the conservation and wise management of West Virginia's natural resources MARKETPLACE Stay on top of your group activity without leaving the page you're on - Get the Yahoo! Toolbar now. Switch to: Text-Only, Daily Digest • Unsubscribe • Terms of Use. __,_._,___

1 0

Fwd: U.S. Government Confirms Link Between Earthquakes And Shale Gas Extr...
by Paul Wilson 15 Nov '11

15 Nov '11

Subject: U.S. Government Confirms Link Between Earthquakes And Shale Gas Extr.. If you think the only problems with fracking are water and air pollution, take a look at this article. you may want to pass this on to the > Subject: U.S. Government Confirms Link Between Earthquakes And Shale Gas Extraction | Commodities | Minyanville.com INTERESTING--Mike > > http://www.minyanville.com/businessmarkets/articles/earthquake-natural-gas-… = -- 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: ScienceDaily: Top Environment News
by Paul Wilson 14 Nov '11

14 Nov '11

fyi, paul ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: ScienceDaily: Top Environment News <newsletters(a)sciencedaily.com> Date: Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 5:21 AM Subject: ScienceDaily: Top Environment News To: pjgrunt(a)gmail.com ** ScienceDaily: Top Environment News<http://www.sciencedaily.com/news/top_news/top_environment/> <http://fusion.google.com/add?source=atgs&feedurl=http://feeds.feedburner.co…> ------------------------------ - Climate policies can help resolve energy security and air pollution challenges <#133a1980156321db_1> - Rising air pollution worsens drought, flooding, new study finds<#133a1980156321db_2> - Climate policies can help resolve energy security and air pollution challenges<http://feedproxy.google.com/%7Er/sciencedaily/top_news/top_environment/%7E3…> Posted: 13 Nov 2011 11:27 AM PST Policies to protect the global climate and limit global temperature rise offer the most effective entry point for achieving energy sustainability, reducing air pollution, and improving energy security, according to a new article. By adopting an integrated perspective on energy and climate policy, one that simultaneously addresses three of the key objectives for energy sustainability, major synergies and cost co-benefits can be realized. Rising air pollution worsens drought, flooding, new study finds<http://feedproxy.google.com/%7Er/sciencedaily/top_news/top_environment/%7E3…> Posted: 13 Nov 2011 11:13 AM PST Increases in air pollution and other particulate matter in the atmosphere can strongly affect cloud development in ways that reduce precipitation in dry regions or seasons, while increasing rain, snowfall and the intensity of severe storms in wet regions or seasons, says a new study. The research provides the first clear evidence of how aerosols can affect weather and climate, with important economic and water resource implications. You are subscribed to email updates from ScienceDaily: Top Environment News <http://www.sciencedaily.com/news/top_news/top_environment/> To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now<http://feedburner.google.com/fb/a/mailunsubscribe?k=FnE73EUgOOJXsfXjfcr0UhL…> . Email delivery powered by Google Google Inc., 20 West Kinzie, Chicago IL USA 60610 -- 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: [ECOLOG-L] ESA Issues in Ecology: Using Air Pollution Thresholds to Protect and Restore U.S. Ecosystems
by Paul Wilson 13 Nov '11

13 Nov '11

Use the link below to get to this 22 page report. fyi, paul ---------- Forwarded message ---------- *From: *Nadine Lymn <Nadine(a)ESA.ORG> *Date: *November 10, 2011 4:47:22 PM EST *To: *ECOLOG-L(a)LISTSERV.UMD.EDU > The Ecological Society of America has just published another edition of its Issues in Ecology series. Air pollution is changing our environment and undermining many benefits we rely on from wild lands, threatening water purity, food production, and climate stability, according to a team of scientists writing in the 14th edition of the Ecological Society of America's Issues in Ecology. In "Setting Limits: Using Air Pollution Thresholds to Protect and Restore U.S. Ecosystems," lead author Mark Fenn (USDA Forest Service) and nine colleagues review current pollution evaluation criteria. The authors propose science-based strategies to set new limits and put the brakes on acid rain, algal blooms, and accumulation of toxic mercury in plants and animals. Issues in Ecology #14 is available for free as a pdf on ESA's website: http://esa.org/science_resources/issues/FileEnglish/issuesinecology14.pdf Nadine Lymn Director of Public Affairs Ecological Society of America 1990 M Street, NW Suite 700 Washington DC 20036 202.833.8773 ext. 205 202.833.8775 Fax ---------------------------------------------- www.facebook.com/esa.org: "Like" the new ESA Facebook page, ask friends/colleagues to do the same. http://twitter.com/#!/esa_org: "Follow" ESA on Twitter. ESA eStore: Now available: "An Ecologist's Guidebook to Policy Engagement." -- 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 -- 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: NYT on Fracking in Pennsylvania gamelands
by Paul Wilson 13 Nov '11

13 Nov '11

---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Fran Hunt <fran.hunt(a)sierraclub.org> Date: Sat, Nov 12, 2011 at 2:34 PM Subject: NYT on Fracking in Pennsylvania gamelands To: CONS-AWL-RESILIENT-HABITATS(a)lists.sierraclub.org [image: image.png] Gas Drillers Invade Hunters’ Pennsylvania Paradise [image: image.png] · Ruth Fremson/The New York Times By KATHARINE Q. SEELYE<http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/s/katharine_q_se…> Published: November 11, 2011 STATE GAME LAND 59, Pa. — For those who have ever stalked deer, turkey and bear here in “God’s Country” in north central Pennsylvania, this hunting season is like no other. For one thing, it is louder. The soundtrack of birds chirping, thorns scraping against a hunter’s brush pants and twigs crunching underfoot is now accompanied by the dull roar of compressor stations and the chugging of big trucks up these hills. Some of this state’s most prized game lands lie atop the Marcellus Shale, a vast reserve of natural gas. And now more and more drills are piercing the hunting grounds. Nine wells have cropped up on this one game land of roughly 7,000 wooded acres in Potter County, and permits have been issued for 19 more. An old dirt road that meanders up a ridge here has been widened and fortified. Acres of aspen, maple and cherry trees have been cut. In their place is an industrial encampment of rigs, pipes and water-storage ponds, all to support the extraction of natural gas through hydraulic fracturing, a process known as fracking. “Who wants to go into their deer stand in the predawn darkness and listen to a compressor station?” lamented Bob Volkmar, 63, an environmental scientist who went grouse hunting the other day through these noisy autumnal woods. “It kind of ruins the experience.” Like many hunters, Mr. Volkmar is upset that the State Game Commission<http://www.pgc.state.pa.us/portal/server.pt/community/pgc/9106> is giving over more public land to the gas companies, which does not exactly fulfill the agency’s mission to enhance the hunting experience. The game lands, as he points out, were bought with the proceeds from licenses and fees paid by hunters and trappers. Carl Roe, the Game Commission’s executive director, acknowledges that drilling “does look ugly” but said that on most well sites, the agency had no control over drilling-related activities. Although the agency owns 1.4 million acres of game lands, it does not always own the mineral rights beneath them, so private owners can lease them out to the gas companies, as is the case with Game Land 59 here. Where the agency owns the mineral rights, it can and does restrict drilling and construction on certain days during hunting season. Mr. Roe also said the agency offsets the losses, which are temporary, by using money from the gas leases to purchase more game lands; it just bought a major tract of more than 9,000 acres. “In the long run,” he said, “this will be a net gain for hunters, not a net loss.” Still, the commission had to warn hunters in September to scout their favorite spots in part because a “dramatic increase in drilling” because of interest in the Marcellus Shale had disrupted traditional hunting and trapping areas. In 2008, the Game Commission received $556,000 in lease payments for Marcellus wells on game lands; by the end of this year, it expects to have received more than $18 million. About 50 Marcellus wells have been drilled on game lands across the state, with permits issued for 148 more. All this activity has put hunters and drillers in potential conflict. The Pennsylvania Independent Oil and Gas Association<http://www.pioga.org/events/pioga-conference-and-trade-show/>, representing the industry, and the Unified Sportsmen of Pennsylvania<http://www.unifiedsportsmenpa.org/>, which supports the drilling, plan to issue their own advisory. “We don’t want hunters to use our tanks for target practice or to sit on top of them,” said Louis D’Amico, president and executive director of the gas association, which issued a similar statement last year. “We want them to be especially careful during bear and deer season, because of the long reach of their rifles.” Sportsmen are just as divided as others over fracking; they are also divided over whether it should be allowed on game lands. Tony Winters, 59, a former conservation officer who had joined Mr. Volkmar on the grouse hunt, shrugged off the drilling here, saying that these lands had been cleared before by lumber companies and that clearing them now for wells will improve the hunting. Mr. Winters pointed out that clear-cutting of trees leads to forest regeneration. It also creates more “edge,” the open borders around the woods. Generally more edge attracts more animals like deer. As a compressor station hummed in the background, Mr. Winters said that he was not bothered by the noise and that animals would not perceive it as a threat. He said there was enough land to accommodate both hunters and drillers. Margaret Brittingham, a professor of wildlife resources at Penn State, said that the full effects of the wells on the flora and fauna were not yet clear and that she was beginning to study them. Dr. Brittingham expects that some wildlife populations, like deer, are expected to increase after the drillers leave, but that songbirds, salamanders and frogs and other amphibians that help maintain a forest’s ecological balance are likely to decline. “You can see these changes on a really local level now,” she said. “But it will take time to see changes in the larger populations.” She said she was skeptical that this new “edge” would be helpful, saying, “it’s more like a parking lot.” But she said such problems could be minimized if the lands were properly reseeded and reclaimed. Still, she said, “all the truck traffic is bad for wildlife.” Human traffic can be a problem, too. During hunting season, the commission has banned seismic surveying (a labor-intensive process that uses waves to find the right place to drill). “They have several crews going in several different directions, so a hunter can’t get out of the way,” said Michael DiMatteo, chief of environmental planning and habitat protection for the commission. Mr. Volkmar and Mr. Winters are also fishermen and members of Trout Unlimited, which started a coalition last year of a dozen outdoor recreation and wildlife groups called theSportsmen Alliance for Marcellus Conservation <http://sportsmenalliance.org/>. It is not opposed to drilling but seeks better regulations, including erosion-control measures and setback requirements. They take samples regularly from local streams to monitor water quality. They both say that fracking<http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/02/us/02gas.html?_r=1&n=Top%2fReference%2fTi…>, which involves injecting millions of gallons of water, sand and treated chemicals deep into the gas bed, could lead to water pollution and fish kills. So far, no one has found water problems in this immediate area. But others have detected contamination, including fish kills, elsewhere in the state. The industry says that fracking itself is safe and that any problems have been caused by spills or leaks. The Environmental Protection Agency<http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/e/environ…> is set to begin a federal investigation<http://water.epa.gov/type/groundwater/uic/class2/hydraulicfracturing/upload…> into whether fracking is spoiling the drinking water in various drilling states, including Pennsylvania. As for spoiling the land, Bill Ragosta, a wildlife conservation officer for the Game Commission on Game Land 59, said that the amount of surface disturbance here was not typical. “Fortunately most of our game lands are not being bombarded like this,” Mr. Ragosta said. But even here, he promised, the drilling would soon end, and reseeding with alfalfa, chicory and clover would bring more deer. “It seems counterintuitive, especially to people who are opposed to drilling,” he said. “I don’t know if it’s better or worse for wildlife in the long run, but it’s not fair to say it’s all black or all white.” A version of this article appeared in print on November 12, 2011, on page A12 of the New York edition with the headline: Gas Drillers Invade Hunters’ Pennsylvania Paradise. -- *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

Tar Sands Action
by Jim Sconyers 08 Nov '11

08 Nov '11

<I can't do it on Nov. 28, but probably can on Nov. 29. Can you help?> I just signed up to be a part of a visit to an Obama 2012 office on November 28th, when people in all 50 states will be visiting campaign offices to ask President Obama to reject Keystone XL. Keystone XL is an environmental disaster waiting to happen: it will carry 800,000 barrels a day of the world's dirtiest oil 1500 miles across the Ogallala aquifer and countless other irreplaceable natural resources. Not only that, it's the fuse to the largest carbon bomb in North America, the Alberta tar sands, which if developed could mean 'game over' for the climate according to NASA scientist James Hansen. President Obama alone has the authority to block the pipeline - Congress plays no role. We're asking him to stop this disaster before it happens, and help us "be the generation that finally frees America from the tyranny of oil," as he declared when he began his run for president way back in 2008. By taking one day to visit offices in all 50 states, we'll show the President that there is a huge amount of support for him to stand up for his campaign promises and reject this pipeline. Click here to sign up: http://www.tarsandsaction.org/sign-up Hoping you can be there with us - we don't have much time to convince the President to reject the pipeline, and this day will be crucial to do it. Hope to see you there. -- Jim Sconyers jimscon(a)gmail.com 304.698.9628 Remember, Mother Nature bats last.

1 0

Fwd: Fw: Earth Policy Release -- U.S. Carbon Emissions Down 7 Percent in Four Years
by Paul Wilson 06 Nov '11

06 Nov '11

Have not seen this on any Club emails as yet. fyi, paul ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Wed, Nov 2, 2011 at 1:11 PM Subject: Fw: Earth Policy Release -- U.S. Carbon Emissions Down 7 Percent in Four Years To: ** [image: Earth Policy Institute] <http://www.earth-policy.org> [image: Bookmark and Share]<http://www.addthis.com/bookmark.php?v=250&pubid=ra-4d6d74824d18a36a&url=htt…> * U.S. CARBON EMISSIONS DOWN 7 PERCENT IN FOUR YEARS: Even Bigger Drops Coming * Lester R. Brown www.earth-policy.org/plan_b_updates/2011/update101 Earth Policy Release Plan B Update November 2 , 2011 EMBARGO 12 NOON EDT Between 2007 and 2011, carbon emissions from coal use in the United States dropped 10 percent. During the same period, emissions from oil use dropped 11 percent. In contrast, carbon emissions from natural gas use increased by 6 percent. The net effect of these trends was that U.S. carbon emissions dropped 7 percent in four years. And this is only the beginning. [image: Graph on U.S. Energy-Related Carbon Dioxide Emissions, 1950-2010, with Projection for 2011] The initial fall in coal and oil use was triggered by the economic downturn, but now powerful new forces are reducing the use of both. For coal, the dominant force is the Beyond Coal campaign, an impressive national effort coordinated by the Sierra Club involving hundreds of local groups that oppose coal because of its effects on human health. In the first phase, the campaign actively opposed the building of new coal-fired power plants. This hugely successful initiative, which led to a near de facto moratorium on new coal plants, was powered by Americans’ dislike of coal. An Opinion Research Corporation poll found only 3 percent preferred coal as their electricity source -- which is no surprise. Coal plant emissions are a leading cause of respiratory illnesses (such as asthma in children) and mercury contamination. Coal burning causes 13,200 American deaths each year, a loss of life that exceeds U.S. combat losses in 10 years of war in Afghanistan and Iraq. The campaign’s second phase is dedicated to closing existing coal plants. Of the U.S. total of 492 coal-fired power plants, 68 are already slated to close. With current and forthcoming U.S. Environmental Protection Agency air quality regulations on emissions of mercury, sulfur, and ozone precursors requiring costly retrofits, many more of the older, dirtier plants will be closed. In August, the *American Economic Review* -- the country’s most prestigious economics journal -- published<http://pubs.aeaweb.org/doi/pdfplus/10.1257/aer.101.5.1649>an article that can only be described as an epitaph for the coal industry. The authors conclude that the economic damage caused by air pollutants from coal burning exceeds the value of the electricity produced by coal-fired power plants. Coal fails the cost-benefit analysis even before the costs of climate change are tallied. In July 2011, New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg announced<http://www.mikebloomberg.com/index.cfm?objectid=4D1722F5-C29C-7CA2-FCB63853…>a grant of $50 million to the Beyond Coal campaign. It is one thing when Michael Brune, head of the Sierra Club, says that coal has to go, but quite another when Michael Bloomberg, one of the most successful businessmen of his generation, says so. The move to close coal plants comes at a time when electricity use for lighting will be falling fast as old-fashioned incandescent light bulbs are phased out. In compliance with the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, by January 2012 there will be no 100-watt incandescent light bulbs on store shelves. By January 2014, the 75-watt, 60-watt, and 40-watt incandescents will also disappear from shelves. As inefficient incandescents are replaced by compact fluorescents and LEDs, electricity use for lighting can drop by 80 percent. And much of the switch will occur within a few years. The U.S. Department of Energy projects that residential electricity use per person will drop by 5 percent during this decade as light bulbs are replaced and as more-efficient refrigerators, water heaters, television sets, and other household appliances come to market. Even as coal plants are closing, the use of wind, solar, and geothermally generated electricity is growing fast. Over the last four years, more than 400 wind farms -- with a total generating capacity of 27,000 megawatts -- have come online, enough to supply 8 million homes with electricity. (See data at www.earth-policy.org.) Nearly 300,000 megawatts of proposed wind projects are in the pipeline awaiting access to the grid. [image: Graph on Cumulative Installed Wind Power Capacity in the United States, 1980-2011*] Texas, long the leading oil-producing state, is now the leading generator of electricity from wind. When the transmission lines linking the rich wind resources of west Texas and the Texas panhandle to the large cities in central and eastern Texas are completed, wind electric generation in the state will jump dramatically. In installed wind-generating capacity, Texas is followed by Iowa, California, Minnesota, and Illinois. In the share of electricity generation in the state coming from wind, Iowa leads at 20 percent. With electricity generated by solar panels, the United States has some 22,000 megawatts of utility-scale projects in the pipeline. And this does not include residential installations. Closing coal plants also cuts oil use. With coal use falling, the near 40 percent of freight rail diesel fuel that is used to move coal from mines to power plants will also drop. In fact, oil use has fallen fast in the United States over the last four years, thus reversing another long-term trend of rising consumption. The reasons for this include a shrinkage in the size of the national fleet, the rising fuel efficiency of new cars, and a reduction in the miles driven per vehicle. Fleet size peaked at 250 million cars in 2008 just as the number of cars being scrapped eclipsed sales of new cars. Aside from economic conditions, car sales are down because many young people today are much less automobile-oriented than their parents. In addition, the fuel efficiency of new cars, already rising, will soon increase sharply. The most recent efficiency standards mandate that new cars sold in 2025 use only half as much fuel as those sold in 2010. Thus with each passing year, the U.S. car fleet becomes more fuel-efficient, using less gasoline. Miles driven per car are declining because of higher gasoline prices, the continuing recession, and the shift to public transit and bicycles. Bicycles are replacing cars as cities create cycling infrastructure by building bike paths, creating dedicated bike lanes, and installing sidewalk parking racks. Many U.S. cities, including Washington, D.C., Chicago, and New York, are introducing bike-sharing programs. Furthermore, when people retire and no longer commute, miles driven drop by a third to a half. With so many baby boomers now retiring, this too will lower gasoline use. As plug-in hybrid and all-electric cars come to market, electricity will replace gasoline. An analysis<http://harvardmagazine.com/2011/07/time-to-electrify>by Professor Michael McElroy of Harvard indicates that running a car on wind-generated electricity could cost the equivalent of 80-cent-a-gallon gasoline. With emissions from coal burning heading for a free fall as plants are closed, and those from oil use also falling fast -- both are falling faster than emissions from natural gas are ramping up -- U.S. carbon emissions are falling. We are now looking at a situation where the 7 percent decline in carbon emissions since the 2007 peak could expand to 20 percent by 2020, and possibly even to 30 percent. If so, the United States could become a world leader in cutting carbon emissions and stabilizing climate. # # # Data and additional resources available at www.earth-policy.org. Lester R. Brown is president of the Earth Policy Institute and author of *World on the Edge <http://www.earth-policy.org/books/wote>*. *Feel free to pass this information along to friends, family members, and colleagues!* *Follow us on:* [image: EPI Fan Page] <http://www.facebook.com/EarthPolicyInstitute> [image: EPI on Twitter] <http://www.twitter.com/EarthPolicy> [image: EPI RSS]<http://earth-policy.org/press_room/C87> [image: EPI Youtube Channel] <http://www.youtube.com/earthpolicy> *Media Contact: *Reah Janise Kauffman (202) 496-9290 ext. 12 rjk(a)earthpolicy.org *Research Contact: *Matt Roney (202) 496-9290 ext. 17 jmroney(a)earthpolicy.org *Earth Policy Institute* 1350 Connecticut Avenue NW, Suite 403 Washington, DC 20036 --- You are currently subscribed to public as: newviv(a)roadrunner.com To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-public-6031842Q(a)lists.earth-policy.org -- Paul Wilson Sierra Club 504 Jefferson Ave Charles Town, WV 25414-1130 Phone: 304-725-4360 Cell: 304-279-1361 "There is no forward until you have gone back" ~Buddha "In all things of nature there is something of the marvelous" ~ Aristotle

3 2

Fwd: Arctic Refuge FW: It's up-- Vote away
by Paul Wilson 03 Nov '11

03 Nov '11

fyi, renewables are winning 55% to whatever oil is getting! vote away, paul ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Dan Ritzman <dan.ritzman(a)sierraclub.org> Date: Thu, Nov 3, 2011 at 4:47 PM Subject: Arctic Refuge FW: It's up-- Vote away To: #arctic(a)sierraclub.org, #Conservation-Habitats(a)sierraclub.org I have no idea where usnews got that picture at the top of the article but it certainly isn’t the Refuge. Alas, still worth voting!**** ** ** *From:* Virginia Cramer [mailto:virginia.cramer@sierraclub.org] *Sent:* Thursday, November 03, 2011 1:13 PM *To:* #Land; Dan Ritzman *Subject:* It's up-- Vote away**** ** ** The US News & World Report "debate" is on-- Please go vote for Dan's response and spread this around. **** http://www.usnews.com/debate-club/is-it-time-to-drill-in-the-arctic-refuge** ** ** ** - ginny**** ** ** Is It Time to Drill in the Arctic Refuge?**** The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, commonly known as ANWR, is a 19-million acre national wildlife preserve in northeast Alaska. The United States Geological Survey estimates that there could be anywhere between 7.7 and 11.8 billion gallons of technically recoverable oil underneath the surface of the refuge.**** The drilling controversy in ANWR centers on a specific, 1.5 million acre area on the northern coastal plain known as the 10-02 area. While this area comprises a relatively small part of the whole refuge, it contains an important calving ground for Porcupine caribou, which have been a significant part of the lives of native Alaskans in the area for thousands of years.**** In 1977, the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System was completed, and conservationists began a campaign to keep oil prospecting out of ANWR. Three years later, President Jimmy Carter signed the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act, which designated 104 million acres in Alaska as national parks and wildlife refuge. The act allowed for drilling in ANWR, but not without Congress’s approval first. The Exxon-Valdez spill temporarily derailed potential drilling in ANWR in 1989, but seven years later the Republican-majority House and Senate voted to allow drilling in the refuge. President Clinton vetoed the bill, but the battle over ANWR raged on in Congress throughout the next decade with President George W. Bush pushing to perform exploratory drilling in the area.**** Rapidly rising energy costs and a weak economy have caused Congress to again investigate the possibility of drilling in ANWR. Is it time to starting drilling in the Arctic Refuge? Here is the Debate Club’s take:**** ** ** -- 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

appalachian coal future
by William V. DePaulo, Esq. 03 Nov '11

03 Nov '11

Coal's Woes Run Deeper than EPA Regs Competitive, Labor Issues Hurt Production Ken Silverstein <http://www.energybiz.com/author/ken-silverstein> | Sep 28, 2011 [image: Share/Save]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.energybiz.com%2Fart…> <http://www.energybiz.com/article/11/09/coals-woes-run-deeper-epa-regs&utm_m…> In Central Appalachia, coal’s potential troubles are running much deeper than the proposed environmental regulations. Both public and private reviews note a reduction in production, citing not just pending federal rules but also increased competition and the depletion of the most recoverable deposits. The coal companies concur, saying that development could migrate to regions with more accessible reserves and a lower cost of production. And while the easy target is the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency that wants to cut toxic emissions, all are acknowledging that the process is more labor intensive and therefore less profitable. That’s because the coal there is much harder dig out, leaving surface mining as the only other possibility -- an even more controversial technique. “Based on historical trend, most of the supply reduction is likely to be permanent,” says Arch Coal<http://www.faqs.org/sec-filings/100222/ARCH-COAL-INC_8-K/c56417exv99w1.htm>in a quarterly assessment. “The 2008-2010 drop is shaping up to be the largest fall-off in production yet,” in reference to Central Appalachia. That production is shifting westward, it says, citing statistics that Central Appalachia annual coal development could fall from around 200 million tons today to 99 million tons by 2035; a decade ago it was 300 million tons. The U.S. Energy Information Administration <http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/MT_coal.cfm>agrees, saying that Central Appalachian coal has “higher cost reserves” that have already been “extensively mined.” That will result in more production from western states, and potentially 1 percent more a year between 2015-2035. In this country, most of the coal comes from Wyoming, West Virginia and Kentucky. Wyoming provides about 41 percent of U.S. coal production, which is an increase from 18 percent two decades earlier. Today, the roughly 443 million tons of coal mined from the Wyoming Powder<http://205.254.135.24/energy_in_brief/role_coal_us.cfm>River Basin is shipped to 34 states, including those in the east. With an expanding rail transportation network, coal emanating from that area could flourish. It’s also easier to mine. Underground mining is one issue. Surface mining, or mountaintop mining, is another that comes with regulatory impediments. Specifically, proposed EPA rules would restrict the ability of mining companies to toss aside debris by setting tougher water quality standards. It would require buffer zones around the streams while requesting mining enterprises to move in phases so that they can better monitor their environmental footprints. Economic Diversification What to do? U.S. senators from coal-producing states are trying to stop the EPA in its tracks, saying that the livelihoods of the affected citizens would be harmed. But perhaps the longer range view would be the diversification of the economies t<http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/ap-enterprise-drastic-declines-ahead…>here, and for them to become net exporters of other fuels. In fact, the Marcellus Region <http://www.marcellusfacts.com/pdf/homegrownenergy.pdgoo>that stretches down the east coast is estimated to hold as much as 500 trillion cubic feet of shale gas. Penn State University says that such assets would create 200,000 jobs and the American Chemical Council says that 12,000 chemical-related jobs would be formed in West Virginia alone. By comparison, the coal mining industry in all of Appalachia employs 31,000 people, says the National Mining Association <http://www.nma.org/>. As production falls there and as EPA regs kick in, that number will decline. “The increased competition from other sources of coal and energy has negatively impacted production in Central Appalachia, illustrating that the existence of coal reserves does not guarantee that the coal will be economical to produce or competitive with other regions,” says a report by Downstream Strategies<http://www.downstreamstrategies.com/documents/reports_publication/Downstrea…>. “The declining competitiveness is due in large part to the increased cost of producing coal in Central Appalachia, for both surface and underground mining.” The Morgantown, WV-based consulting firm goes on to say that if West Virginia and other Central Appalachian states are to cope with a perpetual decline in coal production, policy makers will need to ensure that new jobs and fresh sources of tax revenue become available. It is cautioning against an over-reliance on shale gas, noting the associated water quality issues surrounding it as well as a history of volatile natural gas prices. The firm is therefore concluding that the region needs to promote renewable energy. It is suggesting a renewable portfolio standard whereby utilities would have to supply a quarter of their power from green sources by 2025. Blaming coal’s woes on the proposed environmental regulations tells only a fraction of the story. The rest can be explained by competition from other coal states as well as from cheaper and cleaner fuels. That makes the labor-intensive pursuit for coal in Central Appalachia a tougher sell and the need for fuel diversity there more essential than ever. EnergyBiz Insider has been been nominated in 2010 and 2011 for Best Online Column by Media Industry News, MIN. Ken Silverstein has also been named one of the Top Economics Journalists by Wall Street Economists. Follow Ken on www.twitter.com/ken_silverstein energybizinsider(a)energycentral.com -- 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

coal ash dump collapse in WI
by Frank Young 01 Nov '11

01 Nov '11

And Congress doesn't want the EPA to regulate this stuff. On Tue, Nov 1, 2011 at 10:35 AM, Bill Price <bill.price(a)sierraclub.org> wrote: http://www.jsonline.com/multimedia/photos/132962423.html#id_58603378 Bill Price, Organizing Representative Sierra Club Environmental Justice Program Beyond Coal to Clean Energy Campaign Phone: 304-389-8822 (Cell) Email: bill.price(a)sierraclub.org -- Vernon Haltom Executive Director, Coal River Mountain Watch 304-854-2182 www.crmw.net

1 0

Fwd: Solar Power 2011 - Solar PV Breaks Records in 2010
by Jim Sconyers 30 Oct '11

30 Oct '11

---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Edward Mainland <emainland(a)comcast.net> Date: Sun, Oct 30, 2011 at 6:28 PM Subject: Solar Power 2011 - Solar PV Breaks Records in 2010 To: CONS-SPST-GLOBALWARM-CHAIRS(a)lists.sierraclub.org * Solar Power 2011 - Solar PV Breaks Records in 2010 * J. Matthew Roney *www.earth-policy.org/indicators/C47/solar_power_2011*<http://www.earth-policy.org/indicators/C47/solar_power_2011> Earth Policy Release Eco-Economy Indicator October 27, 2011 Solar photovoltaic (PV) companies manufactured a record 24,000 megawatts of PV cells worldwide in 2010, more than doubling their 2009 output. Annual PV production has grown nearly 100-fold since 2000, when just 277 megawatts of cells were made. Newly installed PV also set a record in 2010, as 16,600 megawatts were installed in more than 100 countries. This brought the total worldwide capacity of solar PV to nearly 40,000 megawatts—enough to power 14 million European homes. Made of semiconductor materials, PV cells convert solar radiation directly into electricity. Rectangular panels consisting of numerous PV cells can be linked into arrays of various sizes and power output capabilities—from rooftop systems measured in kilowatts to ground-mounted arrays of hundreds or even thousands of megawatts. (One megawatt equals 1,000 kilowatts.) There are two main types of PV—traditional crystalline silicon and newer thin-film PV. In 2010, crystalline silicon production was more than double the output of 2009, accounting for over 80 percent of all PV produced. While thin-film production did not keep pace, it still grew by more than 60 percent. First Solar, a U.S. firm, maintained its leadership role in thin-film production, accounting for over 40 percent of world output, most of it produced in Malaysia. Data provided to Earth Policy Institute by GTM Research show that Chinese manufacturers again dominated the global industry in 2010, with close to 11,000 megawatts of PV cell production. (See data at *www.earth-policy.org*<http://www.earth-policy.org/>.) This was the seventh consecutive year in which China at least doubled its PV output. Taiwan was a distant second with 3,600 megawatts produced, followed by Japan with 2,200 megawatts, Germany with 2,000 megawatts, and the United States with 1,100. The top five countries thus accounted for 82 percent of total world PV production. While Germany ranks fourth in solar cell manufacturing, it towers above all other countries in terms of actual electricity generation from solar panels. Germany has widened its lead in this category each year since overtaking Japan in 2004 and, after adding 7,400 megawatts in 2010, now boasts 17,200 megawatts of installed PV. This is more than 40 percent of global capacity and over four times the 3,800 megawatts in Spain, the number two country. PV in Germany now generates enough electricity to meet the power demand of some 3.4 million German homes. Japan installed close to 1,000 megawatts of new PV capacity in 2010. It is the third-ranked country in installed PV, with a total of 3,600 megawatts. As solar adoption accelerates in Japan, its national target of 28,000 megawatts by 2020 may be easily surpassed, especially as the country weighs energy alternatives following the March 2011 Fukushima nuclear disaster. By nearly doubling its total PV power capacity in 2010, Italy vaulted past the United States to claim the fourth position in the world solar rankings, with 3,500 megawatts. With an expected 8,000 megawatts of new PV in 2011, likely overtaking Germany in new installations, Italy will have already exceeded its official 2020 goal of 8,000 megawatts. Enel, Italy's leading utility, sees the country reaching 30,000 megawatts by 2020—enough to satisfy half of its current residential electricity needs. PV capacity in the United States also saw strong growth in 2010, increasing by more than 50 percent to reach 2,500 total megawatts. California, which now has more than 1,000 megawatts connected to the grid, again led all states in new PV installations. But a number of other states, including New Jersey, Nevada, and Arizona, are ramping up their solar capacity as well, driven by programs and incentives at the state and federal levels. Until very recently, China's status as PV manufacturing powerhouse had not translated into much solar generation at home, as panels were seen as too expensive in the domestic market. While the vast majority of Chinese-made PV is sent abroad, a growing government commitment to increasing solar power as part of the energy mix is now catalyzing substantial PV capacity gains. Total installed PV in China grew 140 percent to nearly 900 megawatts in 2010. This was the first full year for the national Golden Sun program, which covers half the investment and grid connection costs of a solar project. It is expected to result in at least 1,000 megawatts of new installations each year after 2012. Furthermore, in August 2011 China's main economic planning agency announced it was implementing a national PV feed-in tariff. This policy tool, now used by more than 60 countries, is behind most of the PV already installed worldwide. A feed-in tariff typically guarantees generators of renewable electricity a long-term purchase price for each kilowatt-hour they produce and "feed into" the grid, providing a powerful incentive for installing such systems. Together the Golden Sun program and the new feed-in tariff are likely to push China's PV capacity to at least double again in 2011—and may help explain why the country's solar power targets for 2015 and 2020 have reportedly risen to 10,000 and 50,000 megawatts, respectively. Although the cost of PV has fallen substantially over the decades, solar-generated electricity is not yet widely price-competitive with electricity generated by heavily subsidized fossil fuels. If the full cost of burning fossil fuels, including health effects and the costs of climate change, were incorporated into the price of electricity, PV would quickly be revealed as one of the least expensive sources of power. As system costs continue to drop, the PV landscape is evolving to include not only traditional small-scale PV installations but also utility-scale parks of tens, hundreds, or even thousands of megawatts. An 80-megawatt PV park completed in Canada in 2010 was the world's largest until September 2011, when a newly-expanded PV complex of close to 150 megawatts in northeastern Germany claimed the title. As of late 2011, the United States had 48 PV projects of 100 megawatts or more in the pipeline, including a 5,000-megawatt park to be sited on degraded farmland in California's San Joaquin Valley. At peak generation, this solar facility's electricity output would rival that of five large nuclear power plants. Multi-megawatt projects are also under development in India as part of the National Solar Mission that was announced in late 2009. Though the country had just 100 megawatts of installed PV capacity at the end of 2010, the goal is for some 22,000 megawatts of solar power—half PV and half concentrating solar power—to be installed by 2022. The western state of Gujarat alone plans to have 3,000 megawatts installed by 2015. Part of the National Solar Mission's PV expansion is destined for rural areas where millions lack access to electricity. As is the case in many other developing countries, there is vast potential in India for PV to provide power in places without an electric grid. Installing small solar systems on homes is often much less expensive than building a central power plant, with the added benefit of greatly reducing indoor air pollution from kerosene lamps. Industry analysts forecast that some 21,000 megawatts of PV will be installed globally in 2011. This would be a marked slowdown from the doubling of the market in 2010, but the pool of countries with rising demand for PV still continues to grow. New markets such as Slovakia and the United Kingdom are among the 20 countries expected to add 100 megawatts or more in 2011, up from 13 countries in 2010. As PV costs drop, as concerns about climate change grow, and as countries look to replace finite fossil fuels with energy sources that can never run out, the growth in solar power should continue. The potential is practically without limit: a *2011 article published in **Energy Policy*<http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/JDEnPolicyPt1.pdf>shows that solar PV deployed in suitable locations could generate 30 times the electricity currently produced worldwide. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - To unsubscribe from the CONS-SPST-GLOBALWARM-CHAIRS list, send any message to: CONS-SPST-GLOBALWARM-CHAIRS-signoff-request(a)LISTS.SIERRACLUB.ORG Check out our Listserv Lists support site for more information: http://www.sierraclub.org/lists/faq.asp -- Jim Sconyers jimscon(a)gmail.com 304.698.9628 Remember, Mother Nature bats last.

1 0

Fwd: Economists estimate comprehensive cost of greenhouse gas emissions
by Paul Wilson 30 Oct '11

30 Oct '11

Below is a link to the PDF report (30 pages) on the cost of carbon. Looks useful...... ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Tim Guilfoile <tim.guilfoile(a)sierraclub.org> Date: Sun, Oct 30, 2011 at 12:54 PM Subject: Economists estimate comprehensive cost of greenhouse gas emissions To: COAL-CAMPAIGN-ALERTS(a)lists.sierraclub.org [image: image.png] http://www.e3network.org/papers/Climate_Risks_and_Carbon_Prices_executive_s… -- Tim Guilfoile Deputy Director Sierra Club Water Sentinels 3078 Elmwood Dr. Edgewood, KY 41017 (859) 426-1978 tim.guilfoile(a)sierraclub.org ><(((*>~~><(((*> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 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 -- 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

Watch live symposium webcast
by Jonathan Rosenbaum 28 Oct '11

28 Oct '11

If you can't get to the symposium in person, you can watch it via webcast: http://energy.law.wvu.edu/events/drilling_down/webcast -Jonathan

1 0

Wheeling Intelligencer supports Senate Ash Bill
by James Kotcon 27 Oct '11

27 Oct '11

EDITORIAL: Push Hard on Coal Ash Bill in Senate October 27, 2011 By The Intelligencer , The Intelligencer / Wheeling News-Register Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid probably will view a newly introduced bill as one more opportunity to stymie conservatives. Reid, D-Nev., probably hopes the Democrat Party discipline on which he usually is able to count will stop the bill. But the measure - the Senate version of a bill passed overwhelmingly by the House of Representatives - is too important to be viewed as a matter of Democrats vs. Republicans. Sens. Joe Manchin and Jay Rockefeller, both D-W.Va., view it that way. They understand the bill, introduced in the House by Rep. David McKinley, R-W.Va., is necessary to prevent the Environmental Protection Agency from killing more jobs and driving up electricity prices even more. McKinley's bill calls for reasonable regulations on coal ash created at many power plants. The EPA wants much harsher new rules. Three other Democrat senators joined Manchin and Rockefeller in sponsoring the Senate version of the bill. Both Mountain State lawmakers view it as a bipartisan effort. Still, they will have to work hard to overcome opposition almost certain to come from Reid and liberals in the Senate. We urge them to make the bill a top priority so it passes with a majority strong enough to overcome the veto President Barack Obama has threatened.

2 1

Fwd: Got Kids? Grandkids? Listen up!
by James Kotcon 26 Oct '11

26 Oct '11

Perhaps this could be used for letters to McKinley, Manchin, etc. on the coal ash bill. Go through a half dozen EPA rules like the ash rule, the power plant mercury rule, etc., and come up with the employment estimates in the Federal Register notices. Then do an op/ed on "Jobs McKinley is trying to Kill" Whaddya Tink? JBK >>> Betty Wiley <betty.w304(a)gmail.com> 10/23/2011 9:17 PM >>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Robert Donnan <redchief7(a)verizon.net> Date: Sat, Oct 22, 2011 at 7:56 AM Subject: Got Kids? Grandkids? Listen up! To: Robert Donnan <redchief7(a)verizon.net> ** These critical issues probably affect our Pittsburgh region more than any other area in the United States. It's hard to believe that anyone would consider unraveling all the progress we have made over the past 40 years. Bob latimes.com Op-Ed 'Too dirty to fail'? House Republicans' assault on our environmental laws must be stopped. By Lisa P. Jackson Administrator of the U.S. EPA October 21, 2011 Americans must once again stand up for their right to clean air and clean water. Since the beginning of this year, Republicans in the House have averaged roughly a vote every day the chamber has been in session to undermine the Environmental Protection Agency and our nation's environmental laws. They have picked up the pace recently — just last week they voted to stop the EPA's efforts to limit mercury and other hazardous pollutants from cement plants, boilers and incinerators — and it appears their campaign will continue for the foreseeable future. Using the economy as cover, and repeating unfounded claims that "regulations kill jobs," they have pushed through an unprecedented rollback of the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act and our nation's waste-disposal laws, all of which have successfully protected our families for decades. We all remember "too big to fail"; this pseudo jobs plan to protect polluters might well be called "too dirty to fail." The House has voted on provisions that, if they became law, would give big polluters a pass in complying with the standards that more than half of the power plants across the country already meet. The measures would indefinitely delay sensible upgrades to reduce air pollution from industrial boilers located in highly populated areas. And they would remove vital federal water protections, exposing treasured resources such as the Gulf of Mexico, Lake Erie, the Chesapeake Bay and the Los Angeles River to pollution. How we respond to this assault on our environmental and public health protections will mean the difference between sickness and health — in some cases, life and death — for hundreds of thousands of citizens. This is not hyperbole. The link between health issues and pollution is irrefutable. Mercury is a neurotoxin that affects brain development in unborn children and young people. Lead has similar effects in our bodies. Soot, composed of particles smaller across than a human hair, is formed when fuels are burned and is a direct cause of premature death. Nitrogen oxides and volatile organic compounds contribute to the ozone alert days when seniors, asthmatics and others with respiratory problems are at serious risk if they do nothing more dangerous than step outside and breathe the air. "Too dirty to fail" tries to convince Americans that they must choose between their health and the economy, a choice that's been proved wrong for the four decades that the EPA has been in existence. No credible economist links our current economic crisis — or any economic crisis — to tough clean-air and clean-water standards. A better approach is the president's call for federal agencies to ensure that regulations don't overburden American businesses. The EPA has already put that into effect by repealing or revising several unnecessary rules, while ensuring that essential health protections remain intact. We can put Americans to work retrofitting outdated, dirty plants with updated pollution control technology. There are about 1,100 coal-fired units at about 500 power plants in this country. About half of these units are more than 40 years old, and about three-quarters of them are more than 30 years old. Of these 1,100 units, 44% do not use pollution controls such as scrubbers or catalysts to limit emissions, and they pour unlimited amounts of mercury, lead, arsenic and acid gases into our air. Despite requirements in the bipartisan 1990 Clean Air Act amendments, these facilities have largely refused to control their emissions — creating an uneven playing field for companies who play by the rules and gaming the system at the expense of our health. If these plants continue to operate without pollution limits, as a legislative wish list from House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) would allow, there will be more cases of asthma, respiratory illness and premature deaths — with no clear path to new jobs. By contrast, the nation's first-ever standards for mercury and other air toxic pollutants which the EPA will finalize this fall — and which the Republican leadership aims to block — are estimated to create 31,000 short-term construction jobs and 9,000 long-term jobs in the utility sector through modernizing power plants. And the savings in health benefits are estimated to be up to $140 billion per year by 2016. Contrary to industry lobbying, this overhaul can be accomplished without affecting the reliability of our power grid. Our country has a long tradition of treating environmental and public health protections as nonpartisan matters. It was the case when President Nixon created the EPA and signed into law the historic Clean Air Act, when President Ford signed into law the Safe Drinking Water Act and when President George H.W. Bush oversaw important improvements to the Clean Air Act and enacted the trading program that dramatically reduced acid rain pollution. Our environment affects red states and blue states alike. It is time for House Republicans to stop politicizing our air and water. Let's end "too dirty to fail." *Lisa P. Jackson is the administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. *

2 1

WVU Faculty Senate viewpoint meeting
by Jonathan Rosenbaum 25 Oct '11

25 Oct '11

Heh all, Right before the exciting City Council COW meeting this Tuesday at 7:00 p.m. where the future of the ban will be discussed informally, http://morgantown.com/agendas/2011/10-25-11-COW.pdf (Note: Bill Bryne will be in another country :) .. Forum on Marcellus Shale Drilling Tuesday,*October 25, 2011*, at 5:30 p.m., 126 Ming Hsieh Hall,WVUDowntown Campus A Discussion of Important Issues From Various Viewpoints. Presented by Pi Sigma Sigma Public Policy Honorary andWVUPolitical Science Department. Seeflyer <http://facultysenate.wvu.edu/r/download/110848>for more information. Note the interesting line-up: John King - WVDEP Environmental Advocate (Remember Pam Nixon at the SierraFest?) Don Spencer - Ex-City Council, the biggest supporter for strong legislation .. resolutions, ban, etc. WV4MOM - No idea who will be talking, I suspect that it may be Professor Tauger from political science Dr. Carr - Interim director of WVU's marcellus initiative, self-describe industry advocate, and the worst choice imaginable by WVU's president. A new page to watch, http://facultysenate.wvu.edu/marcellus. You may be able to catch both events concurrently. -Jonathan

3 2

Fwd: E&E: Ash bill attracts Senate Democrats
by Jim Sconyers 21 Oct '11

21 Oct '11

This is the Senate duplicate of Congressman McKinley's horrible ash bill. Joe Manchin continues to be an embarrassment and to show utter disregard for the health and safety of our citizens. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Alex Taurel <Alex_Taurel(a)lcv.org> Date: Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 9:06 AM Subject: E&E: Ash bill attracts Senate Democrats To: COAL-COMBUSTION-WASTE(a)lists.sierraclub.org ** ** Ash bill attracts Senate Democrats **** Manuel Quinones, E&E reporter**** Published: Friday, October 21, 2011 **** Senate Democrats Kent Conrad of North Dakota, Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Ben Nelson of Nebraska are hoping to convince their chamber's leadership to support legislation to block U.S. EPA from regulating coal ash as a hazardous substance.**** Yesterday they joined Republicans John Hoeven of North Dakota, Mike Enzi of Wyoming, Rob Portman of Ohio and John Boozman of Arkansas in introducing the Senate companion to H.R. 2273<http://eenews.net/bills/112/House/191011114254.pdf>, which passed in the House last week. The measures take a "states-first" approach, meaning they give states broad regulatory authority over the disposal of power plant combustion waste.**** "It ensures good environmental stewardship, while helping to preserve jobs and ensure that a beneficial product is made available for worthy uses," Hoeven said in a statement. "Just as importantly, it ensures that Congress and the states hold the reins of environmental policy."**** Bill supporters say a hazardous designation would have a damaging effect to coal ash recycling efforts. They say the prospect of one is already stigmatizing the material, often used in roads and other construction. During a speech on the Senate floor, Hoeven touted major projects back home that included coal ash.**** The legislation is a top industry priority, faced with tougher EPA oversight. Lawmakers carrying the torch in the Senate hail from major coal producing or consuming states. Hoeven and Conrad, the main sponsors, come from a state where nearly all the electricity is produced by coal-fired power plants, according to the Energy Information Administration.**** "Years of research have shown that coal ash should not be regulated as a hazardous waste," Conrad said in a statement. "Doing so would only force unworkable requirements on our state's utilities, resulting in serious economic consequences and the loss of good-paying jobs."**** Environmental advocates and Senate liberals have been trying to turn the jobs argument on its head, saying strong regulation is an economic booster. They are vowing to fight the bill saying it lacks enough strength to prevent water contamination and potential disaster, like an ash dump break in eastern Tennessee in 2008. The White House has also expressed opposition to the bill but fell short of issuing a veto threat.**** State regulators generally support keeping oversight of coal ash and are pressing for passage of legislation to effectively set aside EPA rulemaking. Environmentalists, however, have released reports saying states like North Dakota have been lax in regulating coal ash, leading to numerous cases of contamination (*E&ENews PM<http://www.eenews.net/eenewspm/2011/08/17/archive/4> *, Aug. 17).**** Earthjustice attorney Lisa Evans, who has been fighting the legislation, pointed out newly released inspection data from EPA showing that three North Dakota coal ash ponds garnered poor ratings. EPA has been conducting integrity tests at sites across the country.**** "It is beyond irresponsible for the senators to offer a bill that fails to cure the safety problems facing their own state," Evans said in a statement. "And it is with great disregard of their civic responsibility that they support a bill that places the citizens of other states at great peril."**** Senators who introduced the legislation say it will give industry regulatory certainty and states clarity in the regulatory process through minimum federal benchmarks.**** "This bill paves the way for states to manage coal ash in a safe, effective manner," Enzi said in a statement. "It is a serious legislative effort that takes a unique approach to fixing a problem that industry and the states want to address."**** Click here <http://www.eenews.net/assets/2011/10/21/document_daily_01.pdf>to read the new Senate bill.**** http://www.eenews.net/EEDaily/print/2011/10/21/7**** ** ** ** ** Alex Taurel**** Legislative Representative**** League of Conservation Voters**** (o) 202-454-4606**** (c) 202-669-1199**** *alex_taurel(a)lcv.org* *twitter.com/LCVPolicy* ** ** - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - To unsubscribe from the COAL-COMBUSTION-WASTE list, send any message to: COAL-COMBUSTION-WASTE-signoff-request(a)LISTS.SIERRACLUB.ORG Check out our Listserv Lists support site for more information: http://www.sierraclub.org/lists/faq.asp -- Jim Sconyers jimscon(a)gmail.com 304.698.9628 Remember, Mother Nature bats last.

1 0

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

EC