- EC - lists.cheatlakeclear.org

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

11 Oct '10

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

1 1

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

11 Oct '10

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

4 4

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

11 Oct '10

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

1 0

News from WVSORO
by Jonathan Rosenbaum 08 Oct '10

08 Oct '10

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

1 0

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

08 Oct '10

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

3 2

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

08 Oct '10

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

1 0

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

07 Oct '10

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

3 3

Gazette Poll
by Regina Hendrix 07 Oct '10

07 Oct '10

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

4 3

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

06 Oct '10

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

2 1

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

06 Oct '10

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

2 1

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

05 Oct '10

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

1 0

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

04 Oct '10

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

1 0

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

04 Oct '10

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

6 5

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

01 Oct '10

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

1 0

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

01 Oct '10

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

1 0

Fw: [WVFirstCongressionalOFA] WV Water Conference
by Jim Sconyers 30 Sep '10

30 Sep '10

Jim Sconyers jim_scon(a)yahoo.com 304.698.9628 Remember: Mother Nature bats last. ----- Forwarded Message ---- From: Denise Binion <dbinion(a)gmail.com> To: WVFirstCongressionalOFA <WVFirstCongressionalOFA(a)groups.barackobama.com> Sent: Thu, September 30, 2010 10:48:16 AM Subject: [WVFirstCongressionalOFA] WV Water Conference http://www.wvwaterconference.org/agenda.cfm ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This email was sent to 17 members of WVFirstCongressionalOFA This email was sent from Denise Binion dbinion(a)gmail.com Listserv email address: WVFirstCongressionalOFA(a)groups.barackobama.com Your reply will be sent to: WVFirstCongressionalOFA(a)groups.barackobama.com Unsubscribe or change your email settings: http://my.barackobama.com/page/group/WVFirstCongressionalOFA/listserv-unsub -------------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

Both WV Senators say coal ash is okay
by Frank Young 24 Sep '10

24 Sep '10

This would be funny, were these guys (Rockeekller & Goodwin) not so serious about it. The paragraph about recycling coal ash into home building materials and other consumer products reflects an incredible mindset of pandering to King Coal. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Vernon Haltom <vernoncrmw(a)gmail.com> To: "FOM, List" <fom(a)lists.riseup.net>; "MJSlist, MJSlist" <mountainjusticesummer(a)lists.riseup.net>; Justice <Justice(a)lists.citizenscoalcouncil.org>; Alliance for Appalachia <the-alliance-for-appalachia(a)googlegroups.com> Sent: Fri, September 24, 2010 11:43:54 AM Subject: [Justice] Fwd: Rockefeller says coal ash is okay What Rockefeller sent below. Here's my response: You are completely wrong in asking the EPA to regulate coal ash as non-hazardous waste. It is hazardous waste and presents a clear and present danger to citizens of West Virginia, and should be regulated as hazardous waste under Subtitle C. It becomes more and more clear that you work for the likes of Don Blankenship and other coal barons, with no regard for the citizens whom you were elected to represent. Shame on you. _________________ ------------ Forwarded message ------------ From: senator(a)rockefeller.senate.gov Date: Sep 24, 2010 Subject: Letter from Senator Jay Rockefeller To: clrank(a)hughes.net Dear Cindy, Thank you for contacting me regarding ash and other types of coal combustion waste (CCW). I always enjoy hearing from a fellow West Virginian, and I welcome the opportunity to be in touch on this important issue. In 2008 the American Coal Ash Association estimated that coal fired power plants generated upwards of 136 million tons of CCW, making it the second largest source of waste in the United States, behind only household garbage. On December 22, 2008, a breach occurred at a coal waste impoundment pond located at the Tennessee Valley Authority's Kingston plant, releasing 1.1 billion gallons of coal ash into the surrounding community. The discharge ended up covering more than 300 acres of homes and property resulting in significant damage. This tragedy has raised serious questions about the health and safety impacts of coal storage to the surrounding communities. Waste management is regulated under provisions of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) of 1976. Subtitle C of RCRA created a hazardous waste management program that required the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to develop criteria for identifying the characteristics of hazardous waste and to develop waste management criteria applicable to such waste. Subtitle D established state and local governments as the primary planning, regulating, and implementing entities for the management of non-hazardous solid waste. In 1980, in response to proposed amendments to RCRA, the EPA excluded the regulation of fossil fuel combustion waste, such as CCW, from its final hazardous waste regulations, deferring that responsibility to state and local governments. In May 2000, the EPA reaffirmed that CCW did not warrant regulation under federal hazardous waste requirements but rather that national regulations for solid waste management requirements should be implemented for CCW when disposed in landfills or surface impoundments. In the wake of the Kingston disaster, the EPA announced its intent to move forward with new CCW regulations addressing the management of coal combustion residuals and surface impoundments in 2010. In May 2010, the EPA released a study outlining national rules to ensure the safe disposal of coal ash from coal-fired power plants. The agency proposal would allow state and federal officials to enforce coal ash, phase out the use of new surface impoundments, and promote legal action should citizens be exposed to the contents of coal impoundments. The proposal would also require companies to place liners beneath all coal ash impoundments to reduce the risk of soil and ground water contamination. On June 21, 2010, the EPA proposed two regulatory rule options applicable to the management of CCW. Under the first option, EPA would draw on its existing authority to identify a waste as hazardous and regulate it under the hazardous waste management standards established under Subtitle C of the RCRA. The second option would establish criteria applicable to landfills and surface impoundments accepting CCW under RCRA's Subtitle D solid waste management requirements. Under Subtitle D, the EPA does not have the authority to enforce its proposed requirements and, instead, would rely solely on states or citizen suits to enforce the standards. On July 29, 2010, I sent a letter to the EPA regarding the agency's efforts to establish national criteria to improve the protection of public health and the environment under RCRA. I have included a copy of that letter for your review. I believe that the best approach for doing this is under Subtitle D and that the EPA should work closely with state regulators in addressing the enforcement of new regulations. The EPA should work with the states and seek coal ash disposal practices under RCRA's Subtitle D that address structural stability of impoundments, protects public health, and promotes the recycling and beneficial reuse of coal ash. I will continue to carefully monitor this issue as the EPA moves forward in its rule-making process and will continue to support efforts designed both improve the safety of coal ash impoundments and protect West Virginia jobs. As always, I wish you the best. With Warm Regards, Jay Rockefeller

1 0

Fwd: TransGas CTL plant update --Order on summary judgment
by James Kotcon 23 Sep '10

23 Sep '10

This is mostly good news (could have been a lot worse). Who could come to Charleston on Oct. 27 or 28? JBK >>> Elena Saxonhouse <Elena.Saxonhouse(a)sierraclub.org> 9/23/2010 6:24 PM >>> Hi all, I received the Order from the Air Quality Board today denying all motions for summary judgment -- meaning that we will move forward to a hearing on all the issues that we decided to pursue. It looks like the Board is particularly intrigued by our argument that DAQ failed to include potential air emissions from wastewater treatment: "the Board considers Appellants' arguments on segmentation to be valid and considers this an area where more evidence is needed prior to making a summary decision." One unfortunate part of the Order is that the Board adopted TransGas's language in describing the issues remaining, which unfairly narrows or mischaracterizes some of them (e.g., our argument about storage tanks). We will get this clarified before the hearing. The hearing is October 27-28 in Charleston. I don't think a big rally or anything is necessary, but it would be great to have some citizens there to show support and public interest, and I encourage the Chapter to think about a media plan. -Elena Elena Saxonhouse Staff Attorney Sierra Club Environmental Law Program 85 Second St., 2nd Floor San Francisco, CA 94105 (415) 977-5765 (415) 977-5793 (fax)

1 0

Fwd: Stories on New Hill Mine permit appeal
by James Kotcon 23 Sep '10

23 Sep '10

A couple news items lately on the appeal, and a story on our fight against gas drilling in state parks. I also had an interview with the local television station, which ran Tuesday night and Wednesday morning (at least) but I did not see either of them. Jim Kotcon ********* Permit for New Hill mine delayed: Sierra Club files appeal with DEP BY DAVID BEARD The Dominion Post Although Patriot Mining Co.'s permit application to expand its New Hill surface mine, near Cassville, has reached its last milestone, the story isn't over. Sierra Club has filed with the state Environmental Quality Board to appeal the mine's water discharge permit - the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. And the surface mine permit itself has not been issued yet, a Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) official said. The surface mining application seeks to expand the New Hill mine by 225 acres. The state DEP milestone chart for the application shows that all the milestones have been achieved and the permit was printed Sept. 2. But DEP spokeswoman Kathy Cosco said the agency wants some additional information and Patriot cannot disturb the land covered by the permit. Sierra Club West Virginia Chapter spokesman Jim Kotcon said the NPDES permit lacks limits for potential pollutants - heavy metals and other toxins contained in mine runoff and fly ash. The appeal seeks to have the permit rescinded or modified to include limits. Patriot applies fly ash - a coal combustion byproduct trucked in from the Morgantown Energy Associates power plant - to mined areas to prevent acid mine drainage. Sierra Club said fly ash contains potential pollutants - arsenic, lead, mercury, selenium and others - that could leach into a tributary of Scotts Run, Scotts Run itself and then into the Monongahela River. New information from the U.S. Environmental Protect Agency indicates fly ash may be more dangerous than originally believed, he said, but the DEP did not include toxin limits in the permit. "West Virginia DEP is still using outdated testing procedures to evaluate the toxicity of coal ash," Kotcon said in a release. The club wants the Environmental Quality Board - a division of the DEP - to require the DEP to comply with NPDES permitting requirements and set limits for pollutants. The DEP previously said it has adequate data for its decisions, the EPA had no issues with the surface mining permit, and Patriot will be required to perform regular testing of surface and groundwater locations. An evidentiary hearing is set for Nov. 18. Board spokeswoman Jackie Shultz said the appeal process could take months, depending on a number of variables. Patriot's attorney in the appeal said he was just familiarizing himself with the case and couldn't comment on it. Patriot did not respond to requests for comment. THE STATE JOURNAL Thursday 23 September 2010: Sierra Club Files Appeal with DEP Over Proposed Cassville Surface Mine Posted Tuesday, September 21, 2010 ; 11:06 PM Updated Wednesday, September 22, 2010; 07:23 AM The Sierra Club says its concerned about water quality issues for the New Hill West mine. By Mike Krafcik MORGANTOWN -- The Sierra Club has filed an appeal to challenge the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection's water permit for the New Hill West mine in Cassville. The notice was filed with the West Virginia Environmental Quality Control Board. The permit was issued to the Patriot Mining Company for the 225-acre strip mine. The Sierra Club said the permit does not adequately control the water pollution that comes from this site. Patriot Mining officials have indicated they would intend dump 1,000-10,000 tons of coal combustion waste per acre of mined area. The club said the DEP standards fail to include any limits for toxic heavy metals that come from fly-ash and coal combustion bi-products. The Sierra Club said the DEP is using out-dated testing procedures that will undermine the risks to ground water and streams from the ash disposal at mine sites. "The DEP needs to have a pollution prevention plan in this permit that assures that any discharges from the mine will meet any water quality standards, they have not done that," said Jim Kotcon, of the Sierra Club West Virginia. The Sierra Club's appeal will be heard as part of a evidentiary hearing before the Environmental Quality Board scheduled for November. Charleston Gazette Thursday 23 September 2010: September 22, 2010 Court urged to block state park drilling By Ken Ward Jr. The Charleston Gazette CHARLESTON, W.Va. -- West Virginia regulators and state environmental groups on Wednesday urged the state Supreme Court to uphold a Department of Environmental Protection decision to block new oil and gas drilling at Chief Logan State Park. The Sierra Club, the West Virginia Highlands Conservancy and Friends of Blackwater joined the DEP and the state Division of Natural Resources in asking justices to overturn a lower court ruling to allow the drilling by Cabot Oil and Gas joined DEP lawyers. In December 2007, then-DEP Secretary Stephanie Timmermeyer rejected Cabot's permit requests, citing a section of state park law that prohibits mineral extraction. Logan Circuit Judge Roger Perry overturned the DEP decision and the Manchin administration appealed. "We believe that we're not allowed to allow drilling on state park surface," DEP lawyer Kristen Boggs told justices during an argument Wednesday. Justice Menis Ketchum repeatedly asked lawyers on all sides if the DEP permit denial amounted to a "taking" of private property that would require the state to compensate Cabot and the Lawson Heirs, a family company that owned the park land 50 years ago and much more recently leased the gas reserves to Cabot. Cabot lawyer Timothy Miller and Lawson Heirs attorney Larry George agreed, as did Perry in the lower court ruling. DNR lawyer Tom Smith told justices the underlying issues in the case are important and could involve drilling and mining in parks across the state. "You can smell the money in this case," Smith said. But Smith said the case before the court is really much more narrow, and involves only the question of whether the DEP can invoke a section of parks law -- which technically involves DNR -- in rejecting a drilling permit. And Tom Rodd, a lawyer for citizen groups that intervened in the case, said that any issue involving whether the drilling ban is a "taking" must be resolved in a separate suit brought by Cabot or the Lawson Heirs, not in an appeal of DEP's permit denial decision. Reach Ken Ward Jr. at kw...(a)wvgazette.com or 304-348-1702.

1 0

Fw: NASA Gives Kids Their Own Guide to Climate Change
by Jim Sconyers 22 Sep '10

22 Sep '10

Jim Sconyers jim_scon(a)yahoo.com 304.698.9628 Remember: Mother Nature bats last. ----- Forwarded Message ---- From: "Leon, Nancy J (1722)" <nancy.j.leon(a)jpl.nasa.gov> To: "jim_scon(a)yahoo.com" <jim_scon(a)yahoo.com>; "celliot2(a)comcast.net" <celliot2(a)comcast.net> Cc: "pjgrunt(a)gmail.com" <pjgrunt(a)gmail.com> Sent: Wed, September 22, 2010 1:52:30 PM Subject: NASA Gives Kids Their Own Guide to Climate Change Jim It was a pleasure to talk to you today. As we discussed, we have developed a new site which explores the timely topic of climate change -- but targeting upper elementary school age kids. We are hoping that this site can be a resource to your members who are parents and teachers. I am attaching a short announcement about the new site. I am hoping that you can include the announcement about the site in your organization's newsletter, and perhaps put in a link to our site from yours. We also have a little logo for the site in case you want it for the graphic link. (Attached) Thanks very much, Nancy Leon Manager, NASA Kids Climate Change Program ____________________________ NASA Gives Kids Their Own Guide to Climate Change A blinking red-eyed tree frog and flitting butterfly greet visitors to the new NASA Climate Kids website. Targeting grades 4 6, this kid-friendly guide de-mystifies one of the most important science issues of our time. The site answers the ³Big Questions² about global climate change using simple illustrations, humor, interactivity, and age-appropriate language. For example, one interactive feature is the Climate Time Machine, which reveals how global changes have affected or will affect our planet over time. ³Climate Tales² has animal cartoon characters coping< more or less good humoredly<with the effects humans are having on their habitats. A collection of Earth-science-related games offers such experiences as ³Wild Weather Adventure² and ³Missions to Planet Earth.² A Green Careers section profiles real people doing jobs that help slow climate change. Visit Climate Kids at climate.nasa.gov/kids.

1 0

Fw: PATH substation victory
by Jim Sconyers 16 Sep '10

16 Sep '10

Small victory on PATH! Jim Sconyers jim_scon(a)yahoo.com 304.698.9628 Remember: Mother Nature bats last. ----- Forwarded Message ---- From: Elena Saxonhouse <Elena.Saxonhouse(a)sierraclub.org> To: CONS-ELP-TRANS-LINES-FORUM(a)LISTS.SIERRACLUB.ORG Sent: Thu, September 16, 2010 4:11:11 PM Subject: PATH substation victory I'm happy to report that the Frederick County Planning Commission found last night by a 6-0 vote that the substation proposed as the terminus for PATH t is inconsistent with the County's Comprehensive Development Plan (basically the County's constitution for local land use). The local groups turned out about 100 people, many of whom who presented individual testimony, along with CAKES, Sugarloaf Conservancy, and Sierra Club presenting as groups. This is a significant setback for PATH, even though there is a question as to whether the County will have ultimate authority over the substation. As many of you know, the MD Public Service Commission has taken the position that if the PSC approves the line and determines the substation is "integral" to the line, the PSC's decision will trump that of the county's. If the PSC approves the line, this issue will likely be decided in state court. I'm attaching Sierra Club's comments to the Planning Commission here for reference (without exhibits), which Alana Wase presented for us last night. There are several other land use hearings coming up in Frederick County, which we also are optimistic about. PATH has the opportunity to appeal the Planning Commission's decision to the Board of County Commissioners, but local folks tell me they are likely to uphold the decision. Thanks to everyone who worked for this great result! Elena Saxonhouse Staff Attorney Sierra Club Environmental Law Program 85 Second St., 2nd Floor San Francisco, CA 94105 (415) 977-5765 (415) 977-5793 (fax)- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - To unsubscribe from the CONS-ELP-TRANS-LINES-FORUM list, send any message to: CONS-ELP-TRANS-LINES-FORUM-signoff-request(a)LISTS.SIERRACLUB.ORG Check out our Listserv Lists support site for more information: http://www.sierraclub.org/lists/faq.asp Sign up to receive Sierra Club Insider, the flagship e-newsletter. Sent out twice a month, it features the Club's latest news and activities. Subscribe and view recent editions at http://www.sierraclub.org/insider/

1 0

Stream flow criteria from CT
by James Kotcon 14 Sep '10

14 Sep '10

The link below presents the approach being used in Connecticut for limiting water withdrawals from streams. In essence, it establishes a "Q99" which is the flow that occurs on 99 % of the days (flow does not drop below this level more than one per 100 days). The rules then establish designated use categories (Class I-IV, with Class I being natural streams, and Class IV being "working rivers" that are most heavily used and impacted.) Withdrawals on Class I streams may not exceed 5 % of the Q99 flow, while withdrawals on "Working rivers" (Class IV) may not exceed 50 % of the Q 99 flow. Whaddya Tink? JBK >>> Martin Mador <mador(a)sbcglobal.net> 9/12/2010 5:00 PM >>> Jim here is the link to the state DEP website. It contains everything relevant from DEP. http://ct.gov/dep/cwp/view.asp?a=2719&q=434018&depNav_GID=1654 The October 13 regs were the agency's proposal after 5 years of study. THen came the hearing and submission of 400 statements, 3/4 of which were generated by us DEP revised the regs in August, making them far weaker, in a strategic move to get them past the Regulations Review Committee of the legislature It will be very difficult for us to get these thru, weak as they are -the water companies hate them. What we really need is comprehensive state-wide planning. These regs are a start, but may actually prevent us from going further. TNC has been a great partner here-they provided the technical expertise. I suggest contacting them. Marty James Kotcon wrote: Could you send me any info or links on the minimum stream flow regs & statute you mention below. The West Virginia Chapter is interested in pursuing something similar.Jim Kotcon304-293-8822 (office), 304-594-3322 (home) --------------------------- cc:Mail Users----------------------------- ** Remember to DELETE the 'Sender: ...' lines above before REPLYing ** ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> Martin Mador <mador(a)sbcglobal.net> ( mailto:mador@sbcglobal.net ) 8/23/2010 4:07 PM >>> 5 years after the legislation passed, the state DEP has finished new streamflow regulations to require minimum flows to maintain river ecology. Due to an amendment to the state constitution, they now go to a committee of the legislature for acceptance. (This would violate separation of powers elsewhere). Second in line behind the water companies to protest even the idea of these regs are the golf courses. So yeah, let's turn them all into (conservation, low impact, cluster) subdivisions. Marty Mador Paula Carrell wrote: --------------------------- cc:Mail Users----------------------------- ** Remember to DELETE the 'Sender: ...' lines above before REPLYing ** ---------------------------------------------------------------------- just in case anyone is proposing new golf course in your vicinity . . . from the Associated Press ----- Forwarded by Paula Carrell/Sierraclub on 08/23/2010 10:58 AM ----- From: "Neill Herring" <neillherring(a)earthlink.net> ( mailto:neillherring@earthlink.net ) Date: 08/22/2010 06:31 AM Subject: AP: golf clubs failing all over US http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100821/ap_on_sp_ot/us_closing_country_clubs Sunday, Aug 22, 2010 Posted on Sat, Aug. 21, 2010 US golf clubs in the rough as members drop away By JIM FITZGERALD A few weeds have popped up on the fairways, and summer's heat has scorched the grass here and there, but the golf course at the Hampshire Country Club is still tidy and scenic, its little waterfall still burbling through the rocks. Not that there's anyone around to notice. The Hampshire's 18-hole course on Long Island Sound, along with its tennis courts, pool and restaurant, is closed this year. Members cited rising costs upwards of $25,000 a year for a membership as the roster fell from several hundred at its peak to about 100. "There was a lot of talk last year about the increasing costs, people not sure what they could pay, the assessments always going up," said Barbara Mines, a member for 15 years who lives in a house on the Hampshire course. "I wasn't really surprised when it closed." The same thing has happened in recent years at hundreds of other courses nationwide - even in the golf meccas of Florida, Arizona and California - as the economic meltdown and changes in family dynamics combine to threaten club life. Whether it's a $45,000 initiation fee for a private club or a $5 increase in the cost of a round at a public course, the price of a golf habit is giving some duffers pause. "It's definitely connected to the economic conditions and the ability of potential private club members to pay the fairly significant initiation fees and annual dues," said Jay Mottola, executive director of the Metropolitan Golf Association, representing 120,000 golfers and 500 golf courses in the New York region. In 2009, about 140 of the 16,000 golf facilities in the country closed and 50 opened, said Greg Nathan, a vice president at the National Golf Foundation, which represents 4,000 courses nationwide. Mottola said that the industry has lost 100 clubs a year for the past four years. (The figures count nine-hole courses as half a facility.) Many members who "have had their individual problems with the recession" quit the clubs for financial reasons, Mottola said. Initiation fees for MGA clubs averaged just under $50,000 last year; annual dues were about $10,500. Mottola said while the fees were "trending downward" they remained the highest in the country. The changing lifestyles of family golfers are also at play. "It used to be that the man of the house could just say 'bye, honey,' and go to the club all day Saturday and Sunday," Nathan said. "That dynamic has really changed over the last three or four decades." Some clubs are trying to become more family friendly as a result, allowing adults to bring their kids in while they tee off and opening computer lounges for busy professionals. "You can check your stocks and e-mails before you tee off," said Donald DeMasters, manager of the revamped Brynwood club in suburban Armonk. In areas of the country where golf is played year-round, many courses were built to raise the prices of new houses around them, said Roger Garrett, a Phoenix real estate agent who has sold more than 150 golf courses nationwide. Now, with the housing market depressed, a dozen or more golf properties in Arizona are in foreclosure or bankruptcy proceedings, he said. The family owned Sea Island Co. - with a stretch of private beaches and ancient oaks in coastal southern Georgia - has also filed for federal bankruptcy protection, proposing to sell its resorts and golf courses, where presidents Coolidge, Eisenhower and George W. Bush have been guests. A dwindling in the ranks of golfers followed an oversupply of golf courses and then the great recession hit. Since 2005, when it peaked at 30 million, Nathan said there's been "a slow leak" in the number of U.S. golfers, dropping to 27.1 million in 2009 (including anyone over age 6 who played a round). Rounds played were down 2.7 percent in the first half of this year, Nathan said. A building boom in the 1990s and early 2000s brought an oversupply of both public and private courses. Mottola said courses owned by municipalities are "by and large doing OK." The town of Woodbridge, Conn., bought the Woodbridge Country Club last year for $7 million to keep it from being developed. "We did not want to lose that green space," said First Selectman Ed Sheehy. "...the nice thing is, it's green space with an income stream" - $950,000 the first year, with golfers paying only $3,500 for a full membership. The recession has also taken a toll on public courses. The Links at Shirley, in Shirley, N.Y., which had advertised itself as "a public course with a private feel" has closed. Clubs still need to do more, said golfer Greg Schimoler of Mamaroneck, teeing off at the public Saxon Woods course in Scarsdale. "The social life kids have today is not the country club lifestyle," Schimoler said. Clubs are looking at several strategies to lure people back. At the private Superstition Mountain Golf & Country Club in Gold Canyon, Ariz., opens one of its two 18-hole courses to the public each day, said general manager Gene Blum. In addition, the initiation fee was slashed from $100,000 to $15,000 as the club went through bankruptcy proceedings. "It was maybe that or lock the doors," he said. Some private clubs have been able to stay open by selling to investors. The struggling Canyon Club in Armonk was sold last year, renamed Brynwood and turned over to Troon Golf, which manages 200 golf courses. DeMasters, the general manager, said the club now has kids' activities, a fitness center and a computer lounge to make it family friendly and "one-stop shopping." The changes tripled membership from about 100 before the sale to 331, he said. The Muttontown Club in East Norwich temporarily dropped its initiation fees - once as high as $60,000 - and welcomed members from a nearby club that closed, said president Mitchell Mandel. "When things were booming, you add $500 or $1,000 to the dues and it wasn't even an issue," he said. "But in the last three years or so, not only can't you raise dues but people were looking for a reduction." - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - To unsubscribe from the CONS-FRED list, send any message to: CONS-FRED-signoff-request(a)LISTS.SIERRACLUB.ORG Check out our Listserv Lists support site for more information: http://www.sierraclub.org/lists/faq.asp Sign up to receive Sierra Club Insider, the flagship e-newsletter. Sent out twice a month, it features the Club's latest news and activities. Subscribe and view recent editions at http://www.sierraclub.org/insider/ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - To unsubscribe from the CONS-FRED list, send any message to: CONS-FRED-signoff-request(a)LISTS.SIERRACLUB.ORG Check out our Listserv Lists support site for more information: http://www.sierraclub.org/lists/faq.asp Sign up to receive Sierra Club Insider, the flagship e-newsletter. Sent out twice a month, it features the Club's latest news and activities. Subscribe and view recent editions at http://www.sierraclub.org/insider/

2 1

Fwd: Liveblog, Twitter, Dallas Coal Ash Hearing
by James Kotcon 14 Sep '10

14 Sep '10

Here is what the Sierra Club in Texas is doing for their coal ash hearings. Why not WV? JBK >>> Oliver Bernstein <oliver.bernstein(a)SIERRACLUB.ORG> 9/8/2010 9:06 AM >>> FYI ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: de la Fuente, Flavia <flavia.delafuente(a)sierraclub.org> Date: Tue, Sep 7, 2010 at 8:00 PM Subject: Liveblog, Twitter, Dallas Coal Ash Hearing To: #Coal <#Coal(a)sierraclub.org> Hello all, We will be liveblogging the Dallas coal ash hearing at www.texasgreenreport.com and tweeting from @TexasSierraClub on Twitter. Comment, re-tweet, enjoy it from afar... best, -- Flavia de la Fuente The Sierra Club, Organizing Apprentice flavia.delafuente(a)sierraclub.org (949) 910 6362 @Flavia_Isabel - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 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

1 0

WSJ: Turning Away from Coal
by Frank Young 13 Sep '10

13 Sep '10

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703579804575441683910246338.h… Turning Away From Coal Utilities are increasingly looking to natural gas to generate electricity SEPTEMBER 13, 2010 By REBECCA SMITH Power companies are increasingly switching to natural gas to fuel their electricity plants, driven by low prices and forecasts of vast supplies for years to come. Agence France-Presse/Getty Images While the trend started in the late 1990s, the momentum is accelerating and comes at the expense of coal. Some utilities are closing coal-fired plants; others are converting them to run on gas. The switch is occurring globally and is getting a push from regulators who want to limit emissions that contribute to climate change, haze and health problems such as respiratory illness. Though efforts in Congress to pass legislation attaching a price to carbon emissions appear stalled for now, utilities still anticipate eventual carbon restrictions. The Tennessee Valley Authority, for example, recently announced a 20-year development plan that emphasizes nuclear and gas, and includes fewer coal units. 'Migration' Occurring "It's pretty clear that, whether it's caused by future carbon legislation or action by the EPA, the migration away from coal has begun," says Constellation Energy Group Chief Executive Mayo Shattuck. Coal-burning facilities are expected to slip to 10% of total new capacity in the U.S. in 2013, down from 18% in 2009, the U.S. Energy Information Administration reports. Gas, meanwhile, is expected to soar to 82% of new capacity in 2013 from 42% last year. Natural gas also has the edge in Europe. In 2009, far more gas- than coal-burning plants were built in the European Union—24% of new capacity versus 8.7%. Journal Reports Read the complete Energy report . In China and India, though, no such shift is occurring—yet. Both nations rely on coal—an abundant local resource—for most of their power and lack the sort of integrated gas-pipeline networks that make switching to gas possible in the U.S. China's government has pledged to roughly double the percentage of electricity the country gets from non-fossil sources, to 15% from 8%, by 2020. But much of that new energy will come from hydropower. India, meanwhile, has agreed to cut its carbon emissions 20% from 2005 levels by 2020. But the country doesn't have enough domestic gas to support a large-scale shift to that fuel, although government agencies are considering increasing imports of liquefied natural gas to take advantage of a growing global glut. The falling price of natural gas in the U.S., to about $4 per one million British thermal units, has helped gas capture an ever-increasing share of power generation. Hardly a week goes by without a company announcing changes that push coal to the sidelines, usually in favor of natural gas, renewables or nuclear plants. Small Won't Survive Most big coal-burning utilities have invested billions of dollars to install pollution-control equipment on their largest coal-fired plants. But they are replacing or idling smaller coal plants for which such expenditures can't be justified. In August, Xcel Energy Inc., based in Minneapolis, notified regulators it wants to close a coal-burning plant in Boulder, Colo., and convert four units at its Cherokee plant in Denver to burn natural gas instead of coal. Xcel says the changes would cost the company $1.3 billion but still would be $225 million cheaper than installing pollution-control equipment on the aging coal units. The program should help satisfy Colorado state goals to reduce releases of nitrogen oxides, carbon dioxide, sulfur dioxide and mercury. The state is reviewing Xcel's plan, which the utility says could raise customer bills an average of 1% annually for several years. Calpine Corp., Houston, says it will convert to gas some of the coal-fired plants in Delaware and New Jersey that it is buying from Pepco Holdings Inc., in a $1.65 billion deal. The units are older plants that are in need of upgrades. Calpine says it can change the burners for less than it would cost to add pollution-control equipment like scrubbers. Progress Energy Inc. of Raleigh, N.C., intends to close four coal-burning plants and replace two of them with gas-fired plants by 2017. The company says it's cheaper to build gas-fired plants than it is to outfit the coal units with the necessary pollution-control equipment. Other utilities are backing away from coal projects because the recession is giving them more breathing room to figure out other ways to meet future energy needs. For example, CMS Energy Corp., Jackson, Mich., had planned to seek regulatory approval in August to build an 830-megawatt "clean coal" power plant in Bay City, Mich. But it has indefinitely deferred the project, citing slack electricity demand and a forecast for continued low natural-gas prices. As a result, the company says, it's cheaper to buy electricity from others than to build a $2 billion coal plant. "We're going to monitor the gas market," says CMS spokesman Jeff Holyfield. "But for now, it doesn't make sense." Questions of Cost Not everyone is willing to give up on coal, of course. Many big coal-burning utilities are trying to find ways to use coal more cleanly. But even they have suffered setbacks. American Electric Power Co. failed in its bid, in July, to get Virginia customers to pay $54 million of the cost of creating an experimental carbon-capture-and-storage system at its Mountaineer coal-fired plant in West Virginia. The plant is owned by AEP's utilities in Virginia and West Virginia. But the Virginia utility commission said it wasn't fair to levy so much of the expense on Virginians when AEP customers in many other states who were not being charged stood to benefit, too. AEP, based in Columbus, Ohio, is appealing the decision. Duke Energy Corp. has been hurt by escalating costs at a state-of-the-art coal-gasification power plant under construction in Indiana. The Edwardsport plant, which is more than half complete, is expected to cost about $3 billion, or 50% more than the $2 billion original estimate. The new cost estimate exceeds the sum that Charlotte, N.C.-based Duke is being allowed to recover from customers. The Indiana commission was expected to hold hearings this month. Ms. Smith is a staff reporter in The Wall Street Journal's Los Angeles bureau. She can be reached at rebecca.smith(a)wsj.com. BOX Black Days for Coal An analysis of the impact over the next several years if all coal-fired power plants must install sulfur-dioxide scrubbers to meet EPA emissions standards for mercury and acid gases 1,885 million megawatt-hours Coal-fired generation in the U.S. in 2009 47 million MWh Loss of generation expected over next five years due to natural plant retirements 244 million MWh Loss expected because of EPA regulation of sulfur-dioxide and mercury emissions 110 million MWh Gain expected from new coal plants 1,704 million MWh Expected coal-fired generation in 2015 —9.6% Percentage change in coal-fired generation, 2015 versus 2009 Sources: Ventyx, Electric Power Research Institute, Energy Information Administration, Bernstein Research analysis -- Kind Regards, Rory McIlmoil Project Manager, Energy Program Downstream Strategies (w): (304) 292-2450 (c): (304) 376-0045 www.downstreamstrategies.com "You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete." ~Buckminster Fuller "The progressive state is in reality the cheerful and the hearty state to all the different orders of the society; the stationary is dull; the declining melancholy." ADAM SMITH.

1 0

Description of hydrofracking operation in State Journal
by William V. DePaulo, Esq. 13 Sep '10

13 Sep '10

Home <http://www.statejournal.com/index.cfm> > News<http://www.statejournal.com/story.cfm?func=showstories&catid=182> [image: Print this story]<http://www.statejournal.com/story.cfm?func=viewstory&storyid=85781&printvie…> [image: RSS] <http://feeds.feedburner.com/StateJournalFeaturedContent> [image: Print this Page] *Print this Page* [Back to Site View]<http://www.statejournal.com/story.cfm?func=viewstory&storyid=85781&> *A Frack Job Explained * Posted Thursday, September 9, 2010 ; 06:00 AM | View Comments<http://www.statejournal.com/story.cfm?func=viewstory&storyid=85781&printvie…>| Post Comment<http://www.statejournal.com/story.cfm?func=viewstory&storyid=85781&printvie…> Updated Wednesday, September 8, 2010; 05:31 PM Hydraulic Fracturing — Surface Equipment Photo Credit: Illustrations courtesy of Chesapeake Energy Corp. *Company details the steps it takes to recover natural gas. * By Pam Kasey Email <pkasey(a)statejournal.com> | Bio<http://www.statejournal.com/bios.cfm?func=viewbio&bioid=63>| Other Stories by Pam Kasey<http://www.statejournal.com/bios.cfm?func=viewstories&bioid=63> It's going on all around and beneath us: hydraulic fracturing to release the natural gas trapped a mile down in the Marcellus Shale. No one knows how many wells are being "fracked" in the state at any one time. With permits in the Marcellus numbering several hundred each year, according to the state Department of Environmental Protection, it's at least a few. But how, exactly, does it work? In mid-August, Chesapeake Appalachia took The State Journal to a Marshall County frack job and explained what its crews were doing. As a brief reminder of terms seen often in the media these days, hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, is the process of blasting water laced with sand and chemicals into a rock formation to create cracks and release the trapped hydrocarbons. The chemicals make the water thicker, to hold the sand in suspension, and slicker, to speed everything through the pipe, while the sand lodges in the cracks and holds them open. Fracking a well, West Virginians have come to understand, takes lots of water. How much depends on the characteristics of the rock formation and the length of the well bore, but 3 million gallons seems to be a lower bound. For its concentrated Wetzel and Marshall county operations, Chesapeake was drawing water from Fish Creek, according to Completion Superintendent Zack Arnold, whose territory includes Wetzel, Marshall and Upshur counties, as well as southwestern Pennsylvania. But as this dry summer stretched on, the company instead established a water line from the Ohio River to two fresh-water impoundments. That came online in early August. An impoundment holds 80,000 to 100,000 barrels, according to Arnold -- 3.3 million to 4.2 million gallons. *Anatomy of a Frack Job* On Aug. 19 at Chesapeake's Waryck site in Marshall County, the company and its vendors were fracking three well bores that extended in different directions from the same point on the surface and were just finishing the first stage mid-day. A video Chesapeake played before the trip explained that drillers create well bores by first drilling down through and beyond the fresh-water zone and casing that length in cement. They then continue drilling down to about 500 feet above the Marcellus layer. Drillers then angle gradually until they're drilling horizontally within the Marcellus layer, out to 4,000 feet and more -- in each of three directions, in this instance. They case the horizontal sections, or "laterals," in cement and are ready to frack. Fracking begins with perforation, Arnold explained. Operators sent a perforation gun on a 20,000-foot electric line to the end of a lateral and fired it to make holes through the casing and into the surrounding rock. When the farthest sections of all three laterals were "perfed," the perf gun was pulled out. Meanwhile, at the surface, operators mixed water, sand and chemicals in a "blender." Pumps blasted the mixed fracking fluid down through the well bores, one at a time, out through the perforations and into the shale. Those first stages would then be plugged, and second stages -- the next-nearest sections as measured by the length of the perf gun -- could be perfed and fracked. When all stages were finally fracked -- 10 to 12 stages is the current industry standard, Arnold said -- the plugs would be drilled through and fracking fluid, now under pressure in the shale, would come back to the surface as "flowback." Several hundred thousand gallons of flowback for each well would give way progressively over a period of one to two weeks to gas, and the wells would then be producing. *Flowback* Chesapeake's current process is to recycle flowback by hauling it to the next site, filtering it and cutting the remaining brine with fresh water. Although Arnold did not want to say how much water it takes to frack a well, he agreed with a range of 3 million to something less than 10 million gallons. Although he also did not want to say how much of that returns as flowback, he did say it's a small enough percentage that, when filtered and cut with fresh water, it is not too salty to fracture the next well. *Containment* The surface operation involves careful fluid management. Chesapeake's best management practices -- more stringent, Arnold stressed, than those required by the state -- include what he described as three levels of containment. Primary containment is everything after the blender, he said -- all the pipes that carry the fracking fluid. For secondary containment, every part of the operation that holds liquid, fresh water as well as pre- and post-frack fluid, rests on a layer of heavy-duty, textured 60-mil plastic. And tertiary containment involves constructed berms running around particular sections of the operation and around the entire pad. Fluid spilled from anywhere will be contained on the plastic, and the expectation is that operators will be able to pump it up before it tops a berm. One Chesapeake crew has no other duty than to check for good practices, making rounds at each active site about once a week; in addition, an on-site crew from an outside vendor spends its time checking the berm and plastic for holes. The state requires spills that leave containment to be reported, but Chesapeake reports every spill even if it stays within containment, Arnold said. *Copyright 2010 West Virginia Media. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.* Most Popular Stories on STATEJOURNAL.com Most Discussed Stories on STATEJOURNAL.com 1. Committee Reveals Possible Route 35 Toll Plan<http://www.statejournal.com/story.cfm?func=viewstory&storyid=85881> 2. 3 W.Va. Schools Receive National Honor<http://www.statejournal.com/story.cfm?func=viewstory&storyid=85879> 3. Allegheny, FirstEnergy Merger Gets Approval from Virginia<http://www.statejournal.com/story.cfm?func=viewstory&storyid=85877> 4. The Greenbrier Resort Will Once Again Offer Discounted Packages<http://www.statejournal.com/story.cfm?func=viewstory&storyid=85874> 5. Maier Acquires Historic C&O Railroad Station in Charleston<http://www.statejournal.com/story.cfm?func=viewstory&storyid=85883> 1. Rockefeller Tells W.Va. Not to Deny Global Warming<http://www.statejournal.com/story.cfm?func=viewstory&storyid=85796> 2. New Poll Shows W.Va. Senate Race a 'Toss-Up'<http://www.statejournal.com/story.cfm?func=viewstory&storyid=85823> 3. A Frack Job Explained <http://www.statejournal.com/story.cfm?func=viewstory&storyid=85781> 4. W.Va. Moves Slowly in Considering Possible Drilling in State Forests <http://www.statejournal.com/story.cfm?func=viewstory&storyid=85774> 5. Groups Brainstorm Oil and Gas Rules for W.Va. <http://www.statejournal.com/story.cfm?func=viewstory&storyid=85782> ------------------------------ *User Comments* [ post comment<http://www.statejournal.com/story.cfm?func=viewstory&storyid=85781&printvie…>] [image: User Comment] *lets be honest* 9/12/10 at 11:11 PM Report Abuse Just so everyone is aware, I read a few articles where it states that each of the Marcellus wells can be frac'd up to 18 times. Which means the trucks will never stop, the land will never have a chance to heal and we will be constantly fearful of contamination. Then to even get better it states that after the Marcellus is dried up, they'll start drilling the Utica Shale which is even deeper. This is not a one time thing to live through. [image: User Comment] *gashound* 9/11/10 at 11:47 AM Report Abuse The number not willing to sign is very small. All you need to do is to take a trip to the courthouse and see for yourself how many have already signed. You will be shocked. [image: User Comment] *marilyn k hunt* 9/11/10 at 11:08 AM Report Abuse Many people who own mineral rights are saying no to contamination and drilling on their property. why? because it is immoral to do something evil for money and real Americans do not sell out their country to Chinese investment banks. our system of government and investment is competing in an economic war with countries which basically just print money with no reserves. how does it feel to know that the Marcellus Shale assets are being sold to foreign countries..Soon you will not have to dig too deep to get to China. Congress is beginning a new roud of hearings into this horrible exploitation of our countries resources...collaborators must be brought to trial for destroying lives and property. They have lied about who they are and what they are doing. [image: User Comment] *gashound* 9/10/10 at 10:07 PM Report Abuse For or against drilling, we all should agree on at least one thing, Senate Bill 617 should be shot down ! Why? If you own an undivided interest in minerals and are looking to sign a lease, this Bill will allow companies to drill, even if only one of the undivided interest owners have signed a lease. Chances are, this signed owner has signed a lease with no protections for the land ! This means any of the remaining unsigned owners will fall under the terms of this lease, along with not being able to negotiate any bonus or royalty. This will cost the state millions !!! Now, if you are against drilling, you need to understand that drilling is happening and will continue to happen. So, if you can't stop it, you need to do what you can to make it as environmentaly friendly as possible. If senate Bill 617 passes, this will allow drilling companies to proceed base on the many, many poorly negotiated leases that have no protections added into them. Without the Bill passing, the remaing owners will be able to add protections into thier lease and the compainies will have to abide by the terms of these leases. All it takes is one owner to have the protections in his or her lease and it will override all other leases !!! So everyone needs to contact their Senate Members and tell them to KILL BILL 617. I hope each and everyone of you understand the importance of stopping Bill 617. Thank You All, gashound [image: User Comment] *do what?* 9/10/10 at 5:32 PM Report Abuse ISN'T A FRACK JOB WHAT LT NORRIS WAS GETTING FROM THAT UNDERAGE GIRL IN A GOV CAR? [image: User Comment] *concerned* 9/10/10 at 10:56 AM Report Abuse To whom thinks fracking is a good idea please watch the documentary Gasland it was on hbo but go to youtube and search Gasland you will change your mind about this drilling or fracking in your backyard. people are getting cancer, brain tumors,animals are dying all the water is contaminated the water stinks, bubbles and YES you can light tap water out of the spicket on fire please look you have nothing to lose but everything to gain from educating yourself on this fracking im just a guy concerned for all of us are kids and grandkids. Thank You Brian for trying to educate these people on fracking everything you said is absalutly true [image: User Comment] *Uncle Sam* 9/10/10 at 3:28 AM Report Abuse Brian, you don't have mineral rights leased to Chesapeake do you? The protesters are jealous neighbors of mineral rights owners. There's an opportunity for many West Virginians to become wealthy and some who will not profit from the Marcellus Shale want to stand in the way. The protesters are jealous people. [image: User Comment] *gashound* 9/9/10 at 8:56 PM Report Abuse Brian, if you feel this way about drilling and fracking then why are you doing it ? Something is wrong with this picture !!! [image: User Comment] *Brian* 9/9/10 at 1:25 PM Report Abuse ive worked with chesapeake in marshall co pumping water and working flowback. they store the water in 500 barrel frac tanks (~45 gal per barrel). ive seen jobs that take as many as 80 of these tanks, all filled with fresh water that was pumped from local steams and creeks. they mix chemicals with the fresh water and send it down-hole. after frac'ing is complete, they flow it back. from the jobs id been on, id estimate that only about 5-10% of the chemical-laced water ever comes back up from the well. the rest of it just sets in the ground and leaches into the formations. the residual water is a concern because studies show that it can, and does leach into the water table deep in the ground. do some googling about water contamination and horizontal drilling. many years ago in texas and oklahoma, farmers were having their livestock die off after drinking contaminated water. another common result from these practices is 'fire water' (not the liquor). people can run water from their sink into a jar, then light the water on fire. it burns due to leeched natural gas and methane. there are also concerns over higher levels of heavy metals in the effected water tables. for many years leading up to 2005, horizontal drilling was federally banned due to these concerns. but wouldnt you know it, bush/cheney rammed through the energy act of 2005, which made it legal for this to go on again. but anyway, 10% TOPS return on flowback. the rest sets underground and leeches. dont buy the BS that they dont know the effects of what they are doing either. it was previously banned for a reason. ------------------------------ *Post Your Comments* * All fields are Required * Name: Email: A valid email address is required to allow State Journal to monitor comments and track users posting inappropriate comments. State Journal does not use these for any type of SPAM operation. Comments: Security Code: Enter the code exactly as you see it above. NOTE: You may refresh the page to load a new Confirmation Code if this one is unreadable. I have read and agree to the JOURNAL Commenting Policy<http://www.statejournal.com/commentsPolicy.cfm> *NOTE:* It is unlawful to disclose personal information, including names, of minors under 18 involved in any criminal action. Other News Categories ------------------------------ *Money* <http://www.statejournal.com/story.cfm?func=showstories&catid=379> Maier Acquires Historic C&O Railroad Station in Charleston<http://www.statejournal.com/story.cfm?func=viewstory&storyid=85883&catid=182> Estate Tax on Its Way Back in 2011 <http://www.statejournal.com/story.cfm?func=viewstory&storyid=84255&catid=182>

1 0

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

EC