EC December 2008

ec@lists.wvsierraclub.org

12 participants
50 discussions

Fw: Mingo coal-to-gasoline idea raises red flags
by Jim Sconyers 24 Dec '08

24 Dec '08

----- Forwarded Message ---- From: Vivian Stockman <vivian(a)ohvec.org> To: fom(a)lists.riseup.net Sent: Wednesday, December 24, 2008 10:54:08 AM Subject: Mingo coal-to-gasoline idea raises red flags http://www.dailymail.com/Opinion/Commentary/200812240248 Wednesday December 24, 2008 Mingo coal-to-gasoline idea raises red flags Let us review what we would be getting into here By JIM SCONYERS please click link (don't forward whole article. clicks equals interest equals more coverage for our issues)

1 0

Final EPA Non-Attainment Designations PM 2.5
by Duane330＠aol.com 24 Dec '08

24 Dec '08

West Virginia Charleston, WV Kanawha Putnam Kanawha Putnam Kanawha Putnam Huntington-Ashland, WV-KY-OH Cabell Mason (p) Wayne Cabell Mason (p) Wayne Morgantown, WV Monongalia Monongalia Parkersburg-Marietta, WV-OH Pleasants Wood Pleasants (p) Wood Pleasants (p) Wood Steubenville-Weirton, OH-WV Brooke Hancock Brooke Hancock Brooke Hancock See the following web site.............. _http://www.epa.gov/pmdesignations/2006standards/regs.htm#3_ (http://www.epa.gov/pmdesignations/2006standards/regs.htm#3) **************One site keeps you connected to all your email: AOL Mail, Gmail, and Yahoo Mail. Try it now. (http://www.aol.com/?optin=new-dp&icid=aolcom40vanity&ncid=emlcntaolcom00000…)

1 0

An informed discussion of coal economics, which suggests a decrease in domestic demand but a vast increase in coal exports from US -- and, consequently, no necessary decrease in domestic coal production.
by William V. DePaulo, Esq. 24 Dec '08

24 Dec '08

*New Coal Economics*<http://www.energycentral.com/site/newsletters/ebi.cfm?id=614> * December 24, 2008* by Lee Buchsbaum <http://www.energyblogs.com/site/blog_this.cfm?article_type=4&article_id=614> Respond to the editor <energybizinsider(a)energycentral.com>. A perfect storm of rising world coal demand and falling international supplies is creating higher prices for U.S. producers who can sell into the export markets instead of domestically. Utilities are also facing rapidly escalating railroad transportation contracts as shippers take advantage of their pricing powers. Major utilities such as AEP, Duke, TVA and others are either raising rates or weighing their options while they struggle to contain their fuel costs, develop new procurement strategies and re-evaluate alternatives. Driving international demand for both coking and thermal coal are rising global electrical demand and coal consumption throughout Asia and India, and production shortfalls in South Africa, Australia and China itself. Throughout 2008, China has purchased as much Australian, Indonesian and Vietnamese coal as they can acquire -- even as less is exported from those producers because of their own growing domestic demands. South American coal, particularly from Colombia, is finding buyers who will purchase at higher rates than U.S. utilities, especially Western Europeans. With the falling dollar, selling to Asia, Europe or South America is giving coal producers a higher return than selling into the United States. "If I were running a coal company and I looked at what's happening on Capitol Hill and the states, I'd be very inclined to send my marketing team overseas," said Michael Morris, AEP chairman, president and CEO. "That's where it appears the growth market is going to be, not here domestically." In 2007, the United States exported almost 60 million tons of coal. This year, many expect that figure to be between 80 and 90 million tons. Estimates for 2009 are even higher at 100 million tons. Through June of this year, producers sent 40.4 million tons overseas, up 57 percent from 2007. With dollar devaluation, the "United States is on sale right now," said James River CEO Peter Socha. Most of what's heading overseas originates in Central Appalachia (CAPP) where some of the world's best remaining coking and thermal coal lies. However, after a century of extraction, much of CAPP's reserves have been depleted. Prices for coal have remained relatively high. According to Michael Quillen, Alpha Natural Resources chairman and CEO, those prices continue to escalate and production remains flat. "Even with dramatic increases in prices, we've not been able to match it with production. If we could, we would," confessed Quillen. "The CAPP basin is on an unstoppable downward slope of shrinking production, and higher prices don't necessarily imply that production can be re-stimulated. Higher prices are merely having the effect of extending reserves." *Fierce Competition* With fierce competition to get into the lucrative export market, producers are selling as much as possible overseas and shortening their contracts. "It's been a recent trend to leave more market pricing open as part of a producer's portfolio," said Chuck Zebula, AEP's new senior vice president and treasurer. Zebula, whose portfolio still includes fuel, contrasts the current market with years past. "Producers today want as many options as possible. They don't want to lock up their coal prices for five years anymore." With eastern coal moving into the export market, coals that would normally be sold elsewhere are filling the CAPP void. Northern Appalachia (NAPP) and Illinois Basin (IB) coals, while garnering higher pricing and being shipped overseas as well, are more expensive domestically, too. Utah, Colorado and PRB coals are also traveling further and, recently, are being shipped in increasing amounts to the West Coast for deep-pocketed Asian customers. Consequently, fuel managers of major utilities are seeing their costs escalate. Mike Hendon, senior manager of coal acquisitions at TVA said he's "never seen prices as volatile as they are now." TVA generates 60 percent of its energy from coal, burning from 45-47 million tons per year. "We're in a period of dramatic increases." To cover its costs, TVA is increasing its rates by 20 percent. To insulate themselves from transportation disruptions, many large utilities are expanding their coal sourcing, buying from different basins and blending. With costs rising for CAPP coal, TVA may increasingly turn to the Illinois Basin as several new and independent producers emerge, particularly in western Kentucky and southern Illinois. "We're happy to see the competition. It's always welcome," said Hendon. AEP is also mixing and matching. "We're in a unique position because we own a 600-unit barge fleet," Zebula said. "In this tightly priced market, we owe it to our shareholders to optimize our system." Rail is an effective but expensive option. While their rail service has improved, CSX is now demanding steep haulage prices, says Pat Cummings, fuel supply coordinator for Rail Transport at Seminole Electric in Florida. "We're facing huge increases in our rail rates that aren't economically justifiable in my opinion. But the railroads control the destination point. For any plant or entity that is served by only one carrier, you're captive and have no alternative." In today's marketplace, coal increasingly no longer wins economically. "If coal stays at $100-$150 a ton, and if natural gas remains as low as it is or continues to fall in price, a lot of utilities will look at gas instead," said Hendon. It's going to be interesting to see what pressure that puts on the coal market: $120 coal versus $7 gas. "We're at that point now with CAPP coal. Gas is becoming a viable alternative." Like it or not, coal is part of a global economy. The railroads and the producers understand that. And they are looking to the highest bidder, which is increasingly overseas. -- William V. DePaulo, Esq. 179 Summers Street, Suite 232 Charleston, WV 25301-2163 Tel: 304-342-5588 Fax: 304-342-5505 william.depaulo(a)gmail.com www.passeggiata.com

1 0

Non-attainment for PM 2.5 (particulate matter)
by Duane330＠aol.com 23 Dec '08

23 Dec '08

EPA Makes Decision to Designate Areas Not Meeting Standards for Fine Particle Pollution Press Release: U.S. EPA. Date: 12/22/2008 Contact Information: Cathy Milbourn, (202) 564-4355 /7849/ Milbourn.Cathy(a)epa.gov (Washington, D.C. – Dec.22, 2008)EPA has notified 25 governors and 23 tribal leaders that certain areas in their states and tribal lands do not meet the agency’s daily standards for fine particle pollution, also known as PM 2.5. “These designations are an important step in our steady march toward cleaner air,” said EPA Administrator Stephen L. Johnson. “We will continue working with our state and tribal partners to meet these air quality standards.” EPA closely reviewed recommendations from states and tribes along with public comments before making its decision to designate 211 counties and parts of counties as not meeting EPA’s PM 2.5 standards. These areas, called nonattainment areas, include counties with monitors violating the standards and nearby areas that contribute to that violation. Affected states and tribes will be required to take steps to reduce the pollution that forms fine particles. The vast majority of U.S. counties and tribal lands are meeting these standards, but will need to continue working to maintain clean air. In 2006, EPA strengthened the 24-hour fine particle standards from 65 micrograms per cubic meter to 35 micrograms per cubic meter of air to protect public health. Nationwide, monitored levels of fine particle pollution fell 11 percent from 2000 to 2007. Fine particles can either be emitted directly, or they can form in the atmosphere from reactions of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides. Exposure to fine particle pollution can cause a number of serious health problems including aggravated asthma, increased hospital admissions and emergency room visits for respiratory and cardiovascular disease, heart attacks and premature death. More information on the designations: _http://www.epa.gov/pmdesignations/2006standards/index.htm_ (http://www.epa.gov/pmdesignations/2006standards/index.htm) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 10 Southwestern Pa. counties cited for not reaching soot pollution standards Tuesday, December 23, 2008, By Don Hopey, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette Ten southwestern Pennsylvania counties are among 211 counties and 23 Native American reservations across the nation designated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency yesterday as not meeting tighter federal health standards for fine particle soot pollution. Parts of Allegheny, Armstrong, Lawrence, Greene and Indiana, and all of Beaver, Butler, Washington, Westmoreland and Cambria counties were declared in "nonattainment" of the daily federal pollution standards for fine particulates. Also in nonattainment are seven counties around Philadelphia in the southeastern corner of the state, three around Harrisburg, two around Allentown and Lancaster County. Because of those designations, Pennsylvania and 24 other states containing counties not meeting the health standard must submit plans to the EPA detailing how they will reduce fine particle pollution or risk losing federal highway funding. Allegheny County and most of the other southwestern Pennsylvania counties struggled to meet less stringent health-based soot standards set in 1997. What's different for the fine particle standard set in 2006 is that the more polluted areas of some counties -- like Liberty-Clairton in Allegheny County -- have been carved out as nonattainment areas, while the remainder of the counties, where soot pollution readings are lower, can avoid the negative designation. "I think it's a good idea to back off the whole county designation. It allows us to concentrate our pollution reduction efforts in those areas where they are needed most," said Dr. Bruce Dixon, Allegheny County Health Department director. "From a health perspective, for many living in our county, airborne particulates are not the foremost pollutant," he said. "But in some areas of the Mon Valley where industry is concentrated, we need to recognize that it is." Dr. Dixon said U.S. Steel Corp.'s ongoing $1.2 billion coke oven replacement project at its Clairton Works will help the Liberty-Clairton area reduce soot levels and move that part of the Monongahela River Valley toward attainment of the federal standard. "It may even achieve the standard," he said. "But if not, we will look at reductions from other industry. We want every industry to make improvements to their processes that reduce pollution. Our first target date is 2010, so we have some time." The federal standard measures soot particles that are 2.5 micrometers in size, called PM 2.5 -- so small that several hundred could fit on the period at the end of this sentence. The fine particle pollution can be emitted directly from coal-burning power plants, other industrial sources or vehicles, or form in the atmosphere from chemical reactions involving sulfur dioxides and nitrogen oxides. Exposure to higher levels of such soot pollution can cause a number of serious health problems, including asthma, heart attacks and premature death, as well as increased hospital admissions and emergency room visits for respiratory and cardiovascular problems. The EPA designations culminate a two-year process that identified counties that failed to meet the 2006 standards and allowed states, tribal leaders, environmental groups and business and industry lobbyists to comment on the agency's proposed designations. The American Lung Association faulted the EPA for leaving five metropolitan areas and several counties with high air pollution off its nonattainment list for fine particles, saying it puts populations in those areas at risk. The five cities -- Houston, Texas; Augusta and Columbus, Ga.; Greenville, S.C.; and Fairmont, W.Va. -- all showed unhealthy year-round levels of soot pollution. In two of those cities, Columbus and Houston, fine particulate levels have worsened. "The Clean Air Act plainly requires the EPA to identify all the places where air pollution poses a threat to public health," said Paul Billings, American Lung Association vice president for national policy and advocacy. "The EPA has a responsibility to do more to protect public health when it comes to air pollution." The EPA said it "closely reviewed" recommendations from states and public comments before making its nonattainment designations. Don Hopey can be reached at _dhopey(a)post-gazette.com_ (mailto:dhopey@post-gazette.com) or 412-263-1983. First published on December 23, 2008 at 12:00 am **************One site keeps you connected to all your email: AOL Mail, Gmail, and Yahoo Mail. Try it now. (http://www.aol.com/?optin=new-dp&icid=aolcom40vanity&ncid=emlcntaolcom00000…)

1 0

Re: [EC] TransGas Development Systems
by James Kotcon 23 Dec '08

23 Dec '08

To Energy Committee: I just received an electronic copy of the air permit application for the proposed CTL plant in Mingo County, compliments of Joe Kessler at WV-DEP. Let me know if you want to see this, and I will forward the three e-mails containing the pdf files. JBK >>> "Kessler, Joseph R" <Joseph.R.Kessler(a)wv.gov> 12/23/2008 4:12 PM >>> I am going to send you an electronic copy of the TransGas application in Adobe in three e-mails so as not to clog up any local server. Please let me know if you successfully received the application. The e-mails will follow this one. Thanks Joe Kessler, PE Engineer West Virginia Division of Air Quality 601-57th St., SE Charleston, WV 25314 Phone: (304) 926-0499 x1219 Fax: (304) 926-0476 Joseph.r.kessler(a)wv.gov -----Original Message----- From: James Kotcon [mailto:jkotcon@wvu.edu] Sent: Monday, December 22, 2008 4:14 PM To: Kessler, Joseph R Subject: RE: TransGas Development Systems I am in no rush and am always happy to procrastinate in order to save a tree. Please send the link when it is available. Thank you. Jim Kotcon >>> "Kessler, Joseph R" <Joseph.R.Kessler(a)wv.gov> 12/22/2008 3:15 PM >>> Jim, we have received an application. I hope to have an electronic copy tomorrow, and when we get it, we are going to try to get it on the website as quickly as possible. If you would like to wait, I will send you a link just as soon as we get it up (or if the file is not too big, I can send it directly to you). We have a hard copy available here for review, as well. Thanks Joe Kessler, PE Engineer West Virginia Division of Air Quality 601-57th St., SE Charleston, WV 25314 Phone: (304) 926-0499 x1219 Fax: (304) 926-0476 Joseph.r.kessler(a)wv.gov -----Original Message----- From: James Kotcon [mailto:jkotcon@wvu.edu] Sent: Monday, December 22, 2008 2:44 PM To: Kessler, Joseph R Subject: TransGas Development Systems Mr. Kessler: A Dec. 10 news story described a coal-to-liquids plant proposed for Mingo County by TransGas Development Systems, and the news story indicated that a permit application was on file at DEP. But I have been unable to find anything available on it posted on the DAQ wev site. Do you have an application on file and would it be possible to get an electronic copy of the application. Jim Kotcon 304-293-8822 (office) 304-594-3322 (home)

1 0

4 simple steps for Obama-including MTR
by Jim Sconyers 23 Dec '08

23 Dec '08

SC's Carl Pope enumerates 4 simple steps Obama can take on his first day in office - includes #3 Mountaintop Removal. Jim Sconyers jim_scon(a)yahoo.com 603.969.6712 Remember: Mother Nature bats last. ----- Forwarded Message ---- From: "aaron.isherwood(a)sierraclub.org" <aaron.isherwood(a)sierraclub.org> To: Alex Moir <alex(a)socm.org>; Landon Medley <beaugard(a)blomand.net>; bill.mccabe(a)sierraclub.org; Mullins Barbara <bmullins48(a)comcast.net>; bpricesc(a)earthlink.net; "Ramey, Carl" <carlramey(a)hotmail.com>; Cindy Rank <clrank(a)hughes.net>; Diane Bady (Diane Bady) <dbady(a)marshall.edu>; Judy Petersen (Judy Petersen) <Director(a)KWAlliance.org>; Emma Cheuse <echeuse(a)earthjustice.org>; Cathie Bird <iamhawk(a)bellsouth.net>; Jane's Mail <jabah2(a)comcast.net>; Janet Fout <janet.ovec(a)gmail.com>; Jason Flickner <Jason(a)KWAlliance.org>; Jennifer Chavez <jchavez(a)earthjustice.org>; Jim Sconyers <jim_scon(a)yahoo.com>; AACEE (AACEE) <jlovett(a)appalachian-center.org>; Joan Mulhern <jmulhern(a)earthjustice.org>; Judy Bonds <judy(a)crmw.net>; Kathy Selvage <kselvage(a)gmail.com>; Kathleen Sutcliffe <ksutcliffe(a)earthjustice.org>; Lauren.Trevisan(a)sierraclub.org; mjanes(a)hardynet.com; Sam <mountainaid(a)verizon.net>; Oliver.Bernstein(a)sierraclub.org; Bob <rmullins58(a)comcast.net>; Steve Roady <sroady(a)earthjustice.org>; Vernon Haltom <vernoncrmw(a)gmail.com>; Vivian Stockman <vivian(a)ohvec.org>; Larry Bush <www.larrylbush@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, December 22, 2008 4:50:09 PM Subject: Sierra Club ED Carl Pope on youtube: 4 simple steps the Obama administration can take This just in.... Aaron Isherwood Senior Staff Attorney Sierra Club Environmental Law Program 85 Second Street, 2d Floor San Francisco, CA 94105-3441 Phone: (415) 977-5680 Fax: (415) 977-5793 http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=oSTnU8mHA18&fmt=6

1 0

Re: [EC] Fwd: Pennsylvania concerned about Marcellus Shale waste water
by Michael Price 22 Dec '08

22 Dec '08

1 0

Fwd: Pennsylvania concerned about Marcellus Shale waste water
by James Kotcon 22 Dec '08

22 Dec '08

Thanks to Duane for finding and forwarding this article on Marcellus Shale drilling fluids. Knowledge is power. JBK >>> <duane330(a)aol.com> 12/22/2008 2:38 PM >>> State concerned about waste water from new gas wells Sunday, December 21, 2008, By Don Hopey, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette Gas well drillers tapping into the deep Marcellus Shales add up to 54 substances, some of them toxic, to the water they use to fracture that rock and release the gas. And the state Department of Environmental Protection doesn't know what chemicals, metals and possibly radioactive elements are in the waste water that is pushed out of the wells. It is discharged into the state's aterways including the Monongahela River, from which 350,000 people get their drinking water. "That's the bigger issue. They don't have an analysis of what's in the waste water they're pulling out," said Dr. Conrad Dan Volz, assistant professor in the Graduate School of Public Health at the University of Pittsburgh. "What they're putting into the wells can chemically change and be added to underground, and no one is saying how much arsenic, manganese, cobalt, chromium and lead is in the stuff. Depending on the concentration, it could be a hazardous waste." Each well drilled into the Marcellus Shales, which lie at least a mile deep beneath parts of Pennsylvania, New York, West Virginia and Ohio, uses up to 4 million gallons of water to fracture the rock and release natural gas. The chemicals are added to the "frac" water that is pumped into the wells under high pressure to reduce friction in the pipe and allow the water to flow more freely into the rock layers. Among the chemical additives are formaldehyde, a human carcinogen; various acids; a variety of petroleum compounds and several pesticides that are toxic to fish and other aquatic life. Many of the chemicals, depending on their concentrations, can also cause human skin, eye and nose irritations, and damage kidney, heart, liver and lung function. Much of that frac water -- about 40 percent of the total used -- is pushed back to the surface\ ?by the gas released from the shale, and it must be disposed of. "Yes, we're concerned," said Mark Hartle, chief of aquatic resources for the Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission. "And we're more concerned with the recovered fluids from the wells than ?with the water they use to do the fracing initially. The problem is, we're not sure what they're ?ending up with so we don't know the constituents of the discharges." Lou D'Amico, executive director of the Independent Oil & Gas Association of Pennsylvania, said frac water chemical concentrations are low and treatment facilities are removing much of the metals and dissolved solids from the waste water. "Companies are committed to huge investments to treat the waste water, because without that we're out of business," Mr. D'Amico said. "We're very aware of all the environmental and public concerns, and our mission is to develop the Marcellus shale as an economic benefit to Pennsylvania and in an environmentally sensitive way." He said drilling and fracing companies are doing a wide-ranging survey of the waste water, also known as "flow-back water," to show it is not a health hazard. Tom Rathbun, a DEP spokesman, said the department also is doing a chemical analysis of the waste water, a study that should be done by the first of the year. "We have a general idea but want to know for sure," Mr. Rathbun said. "If it's different, we will make the necessary adjustments. "I don't think they've been doing enough Marcellus Shales drilling so far to make a difference," Mr. Rathbun said. "But the gas industry needs to come up with a way to deal with this. A couple of companies want to do on-site water treatment, and others are looking at different recycling technologies." He said there are now only about 20 active Marcellus Shales gas wells. But there has been drilling activity at more than 300 in Pennsylvania, and another 250 have been issued state permits. The drilling and water discharges have attracted the attention of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. "It is an issue that's been on our radar for a while and currently a matter we're looking into," said Dave McGuigan, associate director of EPA's regional office of permits and enforcement. "The question is what is in [well waste water] and what are the treatment facilities doing with it." Some of the waste water is taken to DEP-approved municipal sewer authorities that dilute it with their regular effluent before discharging it into a river or stream. Some is trucked to one of the state's six industrial water treatment facilities, where metals, oils and some dissolved solids are removed but where waste salts are a disposal problem exacerbated by the volume of the waste water. "The salts are the biggest issue right now and the most expensive thing to remove from the highly concentrated brines," said Paul Hart, president of Pennsylvania Brine Treatment Inc., who owns three of the state's six industrial treatment facilities and wants to build six more. Mr. Hart criticized the DEP for slow action on permit applications for new treatment facilities, for regulating the well water as waste, which limits the ability of drillers and treatment facilities ?to recycle it, and for failing to determine the composition of the waste water. "The Marcellus has wide variations in the amount of iron, barium and salt, and we need to know the high and low marks so we can treat it and we're still determining that," he said. ?"Right now we don't know as much as we'd like to know." The drilling companies provide the DEP with lists of chemicals they add to the water but not the amounts of specific mixtures, claiming that is proprietary information. Four of the chemical compounds are complex pesticides that scientific assessments have determined are "very toxic to fish." One, 2.2-Dibromo-3-nitrilopropionamide, retards fetal development in rabbits. The pesticides are added to the drill water to stop the growth of algae in temporary holding ?ponds and tanks built next to the drilling pads. Algae and other "biofilms" can foul pumps used to push the water underground and into the shale. None of those chemicals should be discharged directly into surface water such as the Monongahela River, said Dr. Volz, who is studying the effects of pollutants in the rivers. "If there's enough biocide to kill algae, by the looks of this bromated compound there's enough to do damage to fish," Dr. Volz said. "Throwing it in the water is just crazy." He said formaldehyde, which is a human carcinogen, "is always a concern," but any risk is impossible to assess without knowing its concentration. In addition to the pesticides, the chemicals added to the well "fracing" water include acids to dissolve cement around the pipe casings and open perforations in the pipe for the water to flow through and into the shale formation; friction reducers to make pumping easier; and additives to keep clay from reducing the flow of the released gas. Different pumping companies use different frac-fluid recipes and formulas and different combinations and amounts of those chemicals. A report on the chemical additives requested by DEP's Bureau of Oil & Gas Management and prepared for the Independent Oil & Gas Association of Pennsylvania states that care and controls are used to prevent the frac chemicals and chemical water solutions from contaminating surface and ground water near the wells. The report also notes that water in the Marcellus Shales contains high concentrations of dissolved solids, making it unsuitable as a drinking, agricultural or industrial water supply. The DEP and public water suppliers have said the high TDS levels are not a health concern. But David Dzombeck, an environmental engineering professor at Carnegie Mellon University, said without knowing the chemical composition of the dissolved solids, that's hard to confirm. Don Hopey can be reached at 412-263-1983. First published on December 21, 2008 at 12:00 am Source:? http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/08356/936646-113.stm PICTURE Caption:? A drilling rig used to bore thousands of feet into the earth to extract natural gas from the Marcellus Shales deep underground is seen on the hill above the pond on John Dunn's farm in Houston, Pa., in October.

1 0

video
by Jim Sconyers 19 Dec '08

19 Dec '08

Want a mild chuckle? Check out this video. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z7Frv44hvQ0 Jim Sconyers jim_scon(a)yahoo.com 603.969.6712 Remember: Mother Nature bats last.

1 0

Mingo CTL Coal plant emissions in question
by James Kotcon 19 Dec '08

19 Dec '08

The recently announced CTL Plant for Mingo County is being proposed by a company called TransGas Development Systems. Their web page has relatively little in the way of actual accomplishments in CTL, and does not yet list the Mingo County project. The story in the Charleston Gazette indicated the company had problems getting a gas-fired power plant built in New York. The story below indicates that their final request for a re-hearing was denied. A State Senator noted “TransGas never made a good-faith effort to do the right thing by this community.” Do we really want this company in West Virginia? JBK Story below is available at: http://www.nyssenate17.com/17/news/08-07-15/transgas_denied_rehearing_for_p… TransGas Denied Rehearing for Proposed Power Plant in Greenpoint Senator Dilan Announces Another Victory for the Neighborhood Albany, NY - State Senator Martin Malavé Dilan (D-Brooklyn) is pleased to announce another victory in keeping an environmentally dangerous power plant from being built on the Greenpoint waterfront. TransGas had put forward several proposals for building a power generating facility in a neighborhood only now recovering from more than a century of environmental abuse. Although the TransGas proposal was rejected by the New York State Department of Public Service earlier this year, TransGas petitioned for a rehearing by the Department’s State Board on Electrical Generation Siting and the Environment. The Board originally rejected TransGas’s proposal due to multiple problems in the environmental, aesthetic and land use impacts. In their ruling on the rehearing, “The Siting Board today denied the petition for rehearing since the company simply restated arguments previously rejected as invalid.” “The Siting Board has once again used good judgment in denying this request. The city is moving to transform 28 acres around Bushwick Inlet into a park and recreation area. How can you compare that to an environmentally hazardous Power Plant?” said Senator Dilan. “TransGas never made a good-faith effort to do the right thing by this community.” A copy of today’s decision in Case 01-F-1276, when issued, will be available on the New York State Public Service Commission's (www.dps.state.ny.us) Web site by accessing the Commission’s File Room section of the homepage. >>> <jkotcon(a)wvu.edu> 12/10/2008 6:12 AM >>> jkotcon(a)wvu.edu sent you this article ----- December 10, 2008 Coal plant emissions in question ( http://www.wvgazette.com/News/200812090695 ) By Ken Ward Jr. ( about:contact/xjneq+jitnmrggr+pbz+return=/News/200812090695?page=2&build=cache ) Staff writer A New York firm wants to build a $3 billion coal-to-liquids plant in Mingo County, but has not yet come up with a firm plan to control the facility's carbon dioxide emissions. Read more ( http://www.wvgazette.com/News/200812090695 ) ----- See DEP permit

3 2

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

EC December 2008