EC December 2009

ec@lists.wvsierraclub.org

8 participants
19 discussions

FW: NYT (Friedman -- While Detroit Slept)
by James Kotcon 05 Jan '10

05 Jan '10

From my father-in-law. JBK >>> "Bob Elliott" <rdelliott(a)socal.rr.com> 12/12/2008 7:29 AM >>> <http://www.nytimes.com/> <http://www.nytimes.com/> The New York Times <http://www.nytimes.com/> _____ December 10, 2008 Op-Ed Columnist While Detroit Slept By <http://topics.nytimes.com/top/opinion/editorialsandoped/oped/columnists/tho maslfriedman/index.html?inline=nyt-per> THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN As I think about our bailing out Detroit, I can't help but reflect on what, in my view, is the most important rule of business in today's integrated and digitized global market, where knowledge and innovation tools are so widely distributed. It's this: Whatever can be done, will be done. The only question is will it be done by you or to you. Just don't think it won't be done. If you have an idea in Detroit or Tennessee, promise me that you'll pursue it, because someone in Denmark or Tel Aviv will do so a second later. Why do I bring this up? Because someone in the mobility business in Denmark and Tel Aviv is already developing a real-world alternative to Detroit's business model. I don't know if this alternative to gasoline-powered cars will work, but I do know that it can be done - and Detroit isn't doing it. And therefore it will be done, and eventually, I bet, it will be done profitably. And when it is, our bailout of Detroit will be remembered as the equivalent of pouring billions of dollars of taxpayer money into the mail-order-catalogue business on the eve of the birth of eBay. It will be remembered as pouring billions of dollars into the CD music business on the eve of the birth of the iPod and iTunes. It will be remembered as pouring billions of dollars into a book-store chain on the eve of the birth of Amazon.com and the Kindle. It will be remembered as pouring billions of dollars into improving typewriters on the eve of the birth of the PC and the Internet. What business model am I talking about? It is Shai Agassi's electric car network company, called Better Place. Just last week, the company, based in Palo Alto, Calif., announced a partnership with the state of Hawaii to road test its business plan there after already inking similar deals with Israel, Australia, the San Francisco Bay area and, yes, Denmark. The Better Place electric car charging system involves generating electrons from as much renewable energy - such as wind and solar - as possible and then feeding those clean electrons into a national electric car charging infrastructure. This consists of electricity charging spots with plug-in outlets - the first pilots were opened in Israel this week - plus battery-exchange stations all over the respective country. The whole system is then coordinated by a service control center that integrates and does the billing. Under the Better Place model, consumers can either buy or lease an electric car from the French automaker Renault or Japanese companies like Nissan (General Motors snubbed Agassi) and then buy miles on their electric car batteries from Better Place the way you now buy an Apple cellphone and the minutes from AT&T. That way Better Place, or any car company that partners with it, benefits from each mile you drive. G.M. sells cars. Better Place is selling mobility miles. The first Renault and Nissan electric cars are scheduled to hit Denmark and Israel in 2011, when the whole system should be up and running. On Tuesday, Japan's Ministry of Environment invited Better Place to join the first government-led electric car project along with Honda, Mitsubishi and Subaru. Better Place was the only foreign company invited to participate, working with Japan's leading auto companies, to build a battery swap station for electric cars in Yokohama, the Detroit of Japan. What I find exciting about Better Place is that it is building a car company off the new industrial platform of the 21st century, not the one from the 20th - the exact same way that Steve Jobs did to overturn the music business. What did Apple understand first? One, that today's technology platform would allow anyone with a computer to record music. Two, that the Internet and MP3 players would allow anyone to transfer music in digital form to anyone else. You wouldn't need CDs or record companies anymore. Apple simply took all those innovations and integrated them into a single music-generating, purchasing and listening system that completely disrupted the music business. What Agassi, the founder of Better Place, is saying is that there is a new way to generate mobility, not just music, using the same platform. It just takes the right kind of auto battery - the iPod in this story - and the right kind of national plug-in network - the iTunes store - to make the business model work for electric cars at six cents a mile. The average American is paying today around 12 cents a mile for gasoline transportation, which also adds to global warming and strengthens petro-dictators. Do not expect this innovation to come out of Detroit. Remember, in 1908, the Ford Model-T got better mileage - 25 miles per gallon - than many Ford, G.M. and Chrysler models made in 2008. But don't be surprised when it comes out of somewhere else. It can be done. It will be done. If we miss the chance to win the race for Car 2.0 because we keep mindlessly bailing out Car 1.0, there will be no one to blame more than Detroit's new shareholders: we the taxpayers. _____ Make your life easier with all your friends, email, and favorite sites in one place. Try <http://www.aol.com/?optin=new-dp&icid=aolcom40vanity&ncid=emlcntaolcom00000 010> it now.

3 2

PATH drops out in Virginia
by James Kotcon 29 Dec '09

29 Dec '09

You have to read the footnotes, but PATH now says, not only that they want to withdraw their application in VA, but that they won't re-file before the third quarter of 2010, and they pledge not to appeal to FERC for backstop authority before a new application goes through the process. It would be good for them to do that here in WV as well. Happy New Year! JBK

2 1

Fw: COG Digest, Vol 10, Issue 134
by Jim Sconyers 28 Dec '09

28 Dec '09

Wow! As little as 15-20% of the fracking fluid may be recovered. Lotta crap staying in the Earth... Jim Sconyers jim_scon(a)yahoo.com 304.698.9628 Remember: Mother Nature bats last. --- On Sun, 12/27/09, Donald C. Strimbeck <dcsoinks(a)comcast.net> wrote: From: Donald C. Strimbeck <dcsoinks(a)comcast.net> Subject: Fw: COG Digest, Vol 10, Issue 134 To: "Werner Loehlein" <werner.c.loehlein(a)usace.army.mil>, "Tom Mroz" <THOMAS.MROZ(a)NETL.DOE.GOV>, "Tom Konchesky" <scmayor(a)comcast.net>, "Steve Garvin" <SGarvin194(a)aol.com>, "Skip Pratt" <Skip.Pratt(a)eg.netl.doe.gov>, "Shanda Minney" <sminney(a)wvrivers.org>, "Scott Mandirola" <Scott.G.(a)yahoo.com> Date: Sunday, December 27, 2009, 11:47 AM Donald C. Strimbeck, Sec/Treas Upper Mon River Assoc UpperMon.org Vice Chair, Mon River Rec & Comm Com MonRiverSummit.org 109 Broad Street, P. O. Box 519 Granville WV 26534-0519 304-599-7585 (fax 4131) dcsoinks(a)comcast.net ----- Original Message ----- From: "Donald C. Strimbeck" <dcsoinks(a)comcast.net> To: Sent: Sunday, December 27, 2009 11:45 AM Subject: Fw: COG Digest, Vol 10, Issue 134 > News item of interest to those of us in Mon river watershed. > > Donald C. Strimbeck, Sec/Treas > Upper Mon River Assoc > UpperMon.org > > Vice Chair, Mon River Rec & Comm Com > MonRiverSummit.org > 109 Broad Street, P. O. Box 519 > Granville WV 26534-0519 > 304-599-7585 (fax 4131) > dcsoinks(a)comcast.net > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: <cog-request(a)lists.earthworksaction.org> > To: <cog(a)lists.earthworksaction.org> > Sent: Sunday, December 27, 2009 10:26 AM > Subject: COG Digest, Vol 10, Issue 134 > > >> Send COG mailing list submissions to >> cog(a)lists.earthworksaction.org >> >> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit >> http://lists.earthworksaction.org/mailman/listinfo/cog_lists.earthworksacti… >> >> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to >> cog-request(a)lists.earthworksaction.org >> >> You can reach the person managing the list at >> cog-owner(a)lists.earthworksaction.org >> >> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific >> than "Re: Contents of COG digest..." >> >> >> Today's Topics: >> >> 1. Lustgarten: Junk stays in ground! (scobies) >> >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> Message: 1 >> Date: Sun, 27 Dec 2009 10:52:07 -0500 >> From: scobies <scobies(a)frontiernet.net> >> Subject: [COG] Lustgarten: Junk stays in ground! >> To: cog(a)lists.earthworksaction.org >> Message-ID: <93D2336B-F2D4-42C6-B83B-310304B3BA87(a)frontiernet.net> >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; Format="flowed"; >> DelSp="yes" >> >> Relates directly to the original rationale for the Halliburton >> exemption. Powerful quotes from industry. >> >> NYStan >> Stan Scobie, Binghamton, NY <scobies(a)frontiernet.net> >> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >> >> http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1209/30978_Page3.html >> >> New gas wells leave more chemicals in ground >> By: Abrahm Lustgarten - ProPublica >> December 27, 2009 07:11 AM EST >> >> For more than a decade the energy industry has steadfastly argued >> before courts, Congress and the public that the federal law >> protecting drinking water should not be applied to hydraulic >> fracturing, the industrial process that is essential to extracting >> the nation?s vast natural gas reserves. In 2005 Congress, persuaded, >> passed a law prohibiting such regulation. >> >> Now an important part of that argument ? that most of the millions of >> gallons of toxic chemicals that drillers inject underground are >> removed for safe disposal, and are not permanently discarded inside >> the earth ? does not apply to drilling in many of the nation?s >> booming new gas fields. >> >> Three company spokesmen and a regulatory official said in separate >> interviews with ProPublica that as much as 85 percent of the fluids >> used during hydraulic fracturing is being left underground after >> wells are drilled in the Marcellus Shale, the massive gas deposit >> that stretches from New York to Tennessee. >> >> That means that for each modern gas well drilled in the Marcellus and >> places like it, more than three million gallons of chemically tainted >> wastewater could be left in the ground forever. Drilling companies >> say that chemicals make up less than 1 percent of that fluid. But by >> volume, those chemicals alone still amount to 34,000 gallons in a >> typical well. >> >> These disclosures raise new questions about why the Safe Drinking >> Water Act, the federal law that regulates fluids injected underground >> so they don?t contaminate drinking water aquifers, should not apply >> to hydraulic fracturing, and whether the thinking behind Congress? >> 2005 vote to shield drilling from regulation is still valid. >> >> When lawmakers approved that exemption it was generally accepted that >> only about 30 percent of the fluids stayed in the ground. At the >> time, fracturing was also used in far fewer wells than it is today >> and required far less fluid. Ninety percent of the nation?s wells now >> rely on the process, which is widely credited for making it >> financially feasible to tap into the Marcellus Shale and other new >> gas deposits. >> >> Congress is considering a bill that would repeal the exemption, and >> has directed the Environmental Protection Agency to undertake a fresh >> study of how hydraulic fracturing may affect drinking water supplies. >> But the government faces stiff pressure from the energy industry to >> maintain the status quo ? in which gas drilling is regulated state by >> state ? as companies race to exploit the nation?s vast shale deposits >> and meet the growing demand for cleaner fuel. Just this month, Exxon >> announced it would spend some $31 billion to buy XTO Energy, a >> company that controls substantial gas reserves in the Marcellus ? but >> only on the condition that Congress doesn?t enact laws on fracturing >> that make drilling ?commercially impracticable.? >> >> The realization that most of the chemicals and fluids injected >> underground remain there could stoke the debate further, especially >> since it contradicts the industry?s long-standing message that only a >> small proportion of the fluids is left behind at most wells. >> >> But while the message has not changed, the drilling has. >> >> In the nation?s largest and most important natural gas fields, far >> more chemicals are being used today than when Congress and the EPA >> last visited the fracturing issue, and far more of those fluids are >> remaining underground. Drilling companies say that as they?ve drilled >> in the Marcellus they?ve discovered that the shale rock ? which is >> similar to many of the nation?s largest natural gas projects in >> Louisiana, Texas and several other states ? holds more fluids than >> they expected. >> >> During hydraulic fracturing, drillers use combinations of some of the >> 260 chemical additives associated with the process, plus large >> amounts of water and sand, to break rock and release gas. Benzene and >> formaldehyde, both known carcinogens, are among the substances that >> are commonly found. >> >> >> If another industry proposed injecting chemicals ? or even salt water >> ? underground for disposal, the EPA would require it to conduct a >> geological study to make sure the ground can hold those fluids >> without leaking and to follow construction standards when building >> the well. In some cases the EPA would also establish a monitoring >> system to track what happens as the well ages. >> >> But because hydraulic fracturing is exempt from the Safe Drinking >> Water Act, it doesn?t necessarily have to conform to these federal >> standards. Instead, oversight of the drilling chemicals and the >> injection process has been left solely to the states, some of which >> regulate parts of the process while others do not. >> >> As the industry was lobbying Congress for that exemption ? and ever >> since ? the notion that most fluids would not be left underground >> continued to emerge as a recurring theme put forth by everyone from >> attorneys for Halliburton, which developed the fracturing process and >> is one of the leading drilling service companies, to government >> researchers and regulators. >> >> ?Hydraulic fracturing is fundamentally different,? wrote Mike Paque, >> director of the Ground Water Protection Council, an association of >> state oil and gas regulators, to Senate staff in a 2002 letter >> advocating for the exemption, ?because it is part of the well >> completion process, does not ?dispose of fluids? and is of short >> duration, with most of the fluids being immediately recovered.? >> >> The Ground Water Protection Council did not respond to a request for >> further comment. >> >> EPA officials maintained in 2005, and say now, that the volume of >> fluids left underground had little to do with its opinion that >> hydraulic fracturing for gas wells is not the same as underground >> injection. They say that distinction is because the primary function >> of the two types of wells is different: Gas wells are for production >> processes, while most EPA-regulated underground injection wells are >> intended for storage. >> >> But Stephen Heare, director of the EPA?s Drinking Water Protection >> Division in Washington, said that both the circumstances and the >> drilling technology have evolved. When asked to explain how hydraulic >> fracturing today is different from other forms of underground >> injection, he said the bottom line was simple: >> >> ?If you are emplacing fluid, it does not matter whether you are >> recovering 30 percent or 65 percent of it, if you are emplacing >> fluids that is underground injection,? Heare said. ?The simple >> explanation for why hydraulic fracturing is different from other >> injection activities,? he added, is that hydraulic fracturing ?is >> exempt from regulation under the Safe Drinking Water Act.? >> >> The argument that fracturing should not be regulated by the EPA >> became prominent in the 1990s, after the EPA said that fracturing lay >> outside the scope of the Safe Drinking Water Act, because the primary >> purpose of gas wells was energy production, not fluid disposal. >> >> A 1997 Alabama lawsuit challenged that position, and the 11th Circuit >> Court of Appeals ruled against the EPA. >> >> In that decision, the judges wrote that "According to the state >> agency, hydraulic fracturing is not underground injection because it >> does not result in permanent subsurface ?emplacement? of the fluids, >> as these fluids are pumped out of the ground before methane gas is >> extracted out of the well." But the judges called that assertion >> ?untenable? and ordered the EPA to regulate fracturing in Alabama >> under the Safe Drinking Water Act. They also ordered the EPA to more >> clearly define fracturing as a type of underground injection, a move >> that could have paved the way for regulation in other states as well. >> >> But in 2005, before such regulation could happen, Congress stepped in >> and gave hydraulic fracturing its special exemption from the Safe >> Drinking Water Act. >> >> When Congress voted for the exemption it referred to a 2004 EPA >> report, which concluded that fracturing did not pose a threat to >> drinking water. That report, which has since been criticized as >> incomplete, said that while some of the fracturing fluids remained >> underground, ?Most of the fracturing fluids injected into the >> formation are pumped back out of the well along with groundwater and >> methane gas." >> >> >> Lee Fuller, vice president of government affairs for the Independent >> Petroleum Association of America, said that the emphasis on >> wastewater removal was made to help legislators understand how >> fracturing was different from underground injection, but that those >> legislators also knew that much of the water stayed underground when >> they voted for the exemption. >> >> ?The EPA study said there was a certain amount of the water that does >> stay in the fractured formation. That information was known,? he >> said, adding that more of the water may seep out over the lifespan of >> the well. ?So I think there was an understanding of it on the part of >> the proponents of the proposal.? >> >> In the 2004 report, the EPA said as much as 59 percent of fracturing >> fluids can remain underground. A 2009 Department of Energy report >> titled Modern Shale Gas put that figure at 30 to 70 percent, but >> emphasized that most wells fall into the lower end of that range, >> explaining that "The majority of fracturing fluid is recovered in a >> matter of several hours to a couple of weeks." >> >> Just six months ago that point was reiterated in testimony before the >> House Committee on Natural Resources, when the Interstate Oil and Gas >> Compact Commission repeated a statement that former Alabama state >> geologist Donald Oltz made in the 1997 Alabama court case: "Almost >> all hydraulic fracturing fluid is recovered to the surface after a >> hydraulic fracturing operation." >> >> That statement contrasts sharply with the latest reports from regions >> where gas drilling is on the upswing. >> >> Spokesmen for Cabot Oil and Gas, Range Resources and Fortuna Energy ? >> three of the most active companies developing gas resources in the >> Marcellus Shale ? say >> that more water is trapped underground in newer drilling areas >> because the ?tight shale? that is loath to give up the gas is likely >> to hold onto the fluids too. >> >> ?It?s not like you pump a volume of water into the frack and then it >> gives you that volume back,? said Ken Komoroski, a spokesman for >> Cabot Oil and Gas, who says only 15 to 20 percent of the fluid comes >> back out. ?Most of the water and sand stays in the formation compared >> to in other geologic formations.? >> >> Gas industry officials say the amount of fluids they leave behind in >> their wells should have no bearing on whether hydraulic fracturing is >> or is not regulated by the federal government. What?s important is >> managing the risk, says the Independent Petroleum Associations? Lee >> Fuller, a job he says the industry is doing very well without >> additional oversight. >> >> ?You are wrapping yourself around a distinction of whether something >> should or should not be regulated under the Safe Drinking Water Act >> as opposed to whether something does or does not pose an >> environmental risk,? said Fuller, who asserts that despite numerous >> reports of contamination in drilling areas, the fracturing process >> has never been conclusively proven to be the cause. >> >> Regulation, Fuller said, ?may shut down natural gas drilling for a >> long time, but it is not going to make the environment any better.? >> >> It will fall to Congress ? and then to the EPA ? to decide whether >> that is truly the case. Sponsors of the Frack Act hope for a vote >> this spring. If it passes, and if the EPA finds reason to change the >> conclusions it reached in 2004, the agency would then have to decide >> exactly how fracturing will be addressed by the Safe Drinking Water Act. >> >> ?The thinking we did then, the study that we did then, we were really >> looking at a different set of circumstances,? said Heare, the EPA?s >> Drinking Water Protection Division director. ?The agency has not >> investigated the impacts of hydraulic fracturing in other settings >> such as shale gas production and at this time is unable to quantify >> the potential threat.? >> >> ProPublica is an independent, nonprofit newsroom that produces >> investigative journalism in the public interest. For more stories on >> natural gas drilling, go to propublica.org/naturalgas. >> >> ? 2009 Capitol News Company, LLC >> >> >> >>

1 0

Comments on proposed Air permit modification for Longview
by James Kotcon 24 Dec '09

24 Dec '09

Attached is a draft of comments I offer regarding the proposed air permit modification for Longview Power. As you may recall, Longview originally agreed to acquire SO2 emissions offsets from an area within ~100 miles of Dolly Sods in order to offset the impact their plant would have on acid rain in Class I Areas. Longview has had difficulty acquiring the needed offsets and now is seeking to expand the area to include plants to the west of the original area. Our policy optons are: 1) Do Nothing. We signed a settlement agreement to not oppose the opriginal air permit, although we did include public notification requirements just in case something like this came up. If Longview proposed a change, do we violate our Settlement by asking for something different? Does this jeopardize the mitigation funding for the non-profit we are setting up? 2) Ask for further offsets, but do not oppose the permit modification altogether. This is a relatively minor permit modification for WV-DEP, so it seems unlikely to get denied, and a request for additional offsets is about as much as I think we can get from this. 3) Oppose a permit modification altogether. If Longview can't find the offsets they need, they don't have to operate the plant. I am still not convinced that Longview has made a serious effort to secure those offsets from Alleghny or Dominion, which is why I suggested that WV-DEP needs firm evidence of Longview's eforts and their complete inability to acquire the offsets. I think that Longview is a bunch of cheapskates and will do anything to save a buck. Let me know what you think. I would like to get a response out to DEP before Jan. 1 Jim Kotcon 304-293-8822 (office) 304-594-3322 (home)

1 0

Fwd: [GW-ACT-LEADERS] Fw: Friedman: The Copenhagen That Matters
by James Kotcon 23 Dec '09

23 Dec '09

Definitely worth a read. Why not West Virginia? JBK >>> Ron McLinden <ronmclinden(a)YAHOO.COM> 12/23/2009 1:13 PM >>> OPINION | December 23, 2009 The Copenhagen That Matters By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN The climate summit may not have solved our problems, but we can't ignore the issues - or how individual countries, like Denmark, have effectively addressed them. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/23/opinion/23friedman.html?emc=eta1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - To unsubscribe from the CONS-SPST-GLOBALWARM-CHAIRS list, send any message to: CONS-SPST-GLOBALWARM-CHAIRS-signoff-request(a)LISTS.SIERRACLUB.ORG Check out our Listserv Lists support site for more information: http://www.sierraclub.org/lists/faq.asp 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

Fw: [CCL] Wall St. Journal: Sierra Club's Pro-Gas Dilemma
by Jim Sconyers 23 Dec '09

23 Dec '09

Our own Beth Little quoted in the WSJ! Jim Sconyers jim_scon(a)yahoo.com 304.698.9628 Remember: Mother Nature bats last. --- On Mon, 12/21/09, Rachel Treichler <rachel(a)ecobooks.com> wrote: From: Rachel Treichler <rachel(a)ecobooks.com> Subject: [CCL] Wall St. Journal: Sierra Club's Pro-Gas Dilemma To: CCL-DELEGATES(a)LISTS.SIERRACLUB.ORG Date: Monday, December 21, 2009, 10:14 AM Sierra Club's Pro-Gas Dilemma National Group's Stance Angers On-the-Ground Environmentalists in Several States Wall Street Journal, Dec. 21, 2009 http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB126135534799299475-lMyQjAxMDI5NjIxMTM… By BEN CASSELMAN LIVERPOOL, N.Y. -- When energy companies began preparations to drill for natural gas in upstate New York last year, the local Sierra Club quickly organized against them. The group's New York chapter demanded studies on the environmental risks, pushed for stricter regulations and called for a statewide ban on most gas drilling. The drilling hasn't begun as the state works to develop regulations. It would have been a typical story of environmentalists battling industry, except for one thing: The national Sierra Club is one of natural gas's biggest boosters. Carl Pope, the Sierra Club's executive director, has traveled the country promoting natural gas's environmental benefits, sometimes alongside Aubrey McClendon, chief executive of Chesapeake Energy Corp., one of the biggest U.S. gas companies by production. The national group's pro-gas stance has angered on-the-ground environmentalists in several states who say their concerns are being marginalized. "It makes us look like the extremists that the industry wants to call us anyway," said Beth Little, a board member of the Sierra Club's West Virginia chapter, which is more skeptical about drilling than the national organization. The rift in the Sierra Club, one of the country's oldest and most prominent conservation groups, highlights deep divisions in the broader environmental community over natural gas. And pressure from local activists is forcing some major environmental groups to revisit their positions on drilling. Some activists, such as Mr. Pope, believe increased drilling -- with appropriate safeguards -- is the best way to wean the U.S. off coal, which they see as the greater environmental threat. Others, many of them in areas affected by drilling, see potential risks -- air pollution, increased water use and soil and water contamination -- as too high. "It's been an at-times rancorous debate in the environmental community," said Bruce Baizel, an attorney for Earthworks, a national environmental group focused on energy issues. That debate will likely grow more heated following Exxon Mobil Corp.'s announcement last week that it is buying XTO Energy Inc. The deal will make Exxon, already a significant target of environmentalists, into the country's biggest natural-gas producer. The industry has made the environmental benefits of gas a centerpiece of an $80 million lobbying effort that aims to promote increased use of gas to generate electricity and fuel cars and trucks. Burning natural gas releases about half as much carbon dioxide as burning coal to produce the same amount of energy and also emits far fewer smog-causing gases such as nitrogen oxide. National groups such as the Sierra Club, the Environmental Defense Fund and the Natural Resources Defense Council have backed natural gas as a so-called bridge fuel that can help the country move away from coal and oil without waiting for renewable sources of energy, such as wind and solar power, to catch up. The support of environmental groups has helped the industry win key backers in Congress, where a bipartisan "Congressional Natural Gas Caucus" formed this year. But local opposition presents a challenge to the coalition. Grassroots groups have sprung up across the country to raise environmental concerns, particularly about the alleged risk of drinking-water contamination from hydraulic fracturing, a process in which large volumes of chemical-laced water are injected down wells to release gas trapped in underground rock formations. Companies say that their drilling practices, including hydraulic fracturing, are safe, and that existing regulations are sufficient. There have been few independent studies to assess how widespread problems are. "There are legitimate questions, and they can be answered legitimately," said Mr. McClendon, Chesapeake's CEO. "I feel we're on the right side of history here." The pressure from local environmentalists appears to be having an impact. The Natural Resources Defense Council is now pushing for stricter regulation of drilling, the Environmental Defense Fund is working with companies to encourage them to adopt stronger environmental safeguards, and the Sierra Club has formed a task force to draft a policy on hydraulic fracturing. James Marston, director of the Environmental Defense Fund's energy program, said the pros and cons of increased natural-gas use have turned out to be "more complicated than some of the early reports" indicated. Concern appears to be growing in Congress, too, about the environmental impact of drilling. A House bill to regulate hydraulic fracturing has drawn 49 co-sponsors, and a companion bill has been introduced in the Senate. Exxon is sufficiently concerned about the legislation that its merger agreement with XTO allows the company to back out of the deal if Congress makes hydraulic fracturing illegal or "commercially impracticable." The grassroots opposition the industry faces was on display here on a recent Tuesday afternoon, when more than 50 people filled the community room of the public library in this town of 2,500 just outside of Syracuse, N.Y. As local environmental leaders talked about the thousands of acres of local land that had been leased for drilling, Syracuse resident Larry Paul shook his head. "I don't trust the industry," Mr. Paul said after the meeting. "This is a disaster waiting to happen." Still, Mr. Pope, of the national Sierra Club, said many of the same people who complain about drilling are using oil, gas and coal produced elsewhere -- often at a greater environmental cost. "Will the 20% of the membership that happens to live in places where drilling is happening be unhappy?" he asked. "I'm sure that's true." Write to Ben Casselman at ben.casselman(a)wsj.com Printed in The Wall Street Journal, page A3 Copyright 2009 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - To unsubscribe from the CCL-DELEGATES list, send any message to: CCL-DELEGATES-signoff-request(a)LISTS.SIERRACLUB.ORG Check out our Listserv Lists support site for more information: http://www.sierraclub.org/lists/faq.asp

2 1

Fwd: Comments on Mingo CTL plant
by James Kotcon 21 Dec '09

21 Dec '09

To the Energy Committee: Attached are the comments submitted on behalf of the Club for the TransGas Coal-To-Liquids air permit last Friday. While I put some time into this, we also got a substantial amount of help from National Sierra Club and a couple experts they retained, and these comments would not have been anywhere near as extensive without them. Our first major issue is that TransGas and WV-DEP have significantly underestimated the pollution emissions as part of an effort to have this plant be permitted as a "minor" source. As such, the applicant is attempting to avoid a lot of pollution modeling requirements, BACT analyses, and many other permitting requirements under the Clean Air Act. Thus, the bulk of the comments identify the numerous emissions sources that were ignored or underestimated by WV-DEP. The second big issue is that the applicant has not proposed any controls or limits on greenhouse gas emissions. While West Virginia does not currently have an emissions standard for greenhouse gases, we argued that they have an obligation to impose limits based on their broad responsibility to protect the public welfare. There are also numerous other issues with monitoring, enforceability, and "confidential business information". This is a great read for policy wonks or simply for educational purposes. I am grateful to Elena and all the support from National on this issue. Jim Kotcon >>> Elena Saxonhouse <Elena.Saxonhouse(a)sierraclub.org> 12/18/2009 7:33 PM >>> This is a corrected version of what we sent yesterday; I sent an errata sheet to DEP earlier today. I am not attaching the Exhibits, but would be happy to provide them to anyone who wants them. Elena Saxonhouse Sierra Club Environmental Law Program 85 Second St., 2nd Floor San Francisco, CA 94105 (415) 977-5765 (415) 977-5793 (fax)

1 0

[WVaPATH] FW: Path-vA PUE-2009-00043
by James Kotcon 21 Dec '09

21 Dec '09

PATH, LLC filed these motions in Virginia to withdraw their application. They now want to re-file a new set of applications in all three states (early in 2010) to "coordinate the schedule among all three states". I don't think anyone thinks this is over, so we need to take advantage of this time to lobby the Legislature. JBK >>> Patience Wait <pwaitster(a)gmail.com> 12/21/2009 12:31 PM >>> BIG NEWS out of Virginia today! And the PATH application supposedly was filed in MD today, but I haven't found it yet. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Bri West <bwest(a)pecva.org> Date: Mon, Dec 21, 2009 at 12:01 PM Subject: FW: Path-vA PUE-2009-00043 To: Patience Wait <pwaitster(a)gmail.com> Two motions filed today. __._,_.___ Reply to sender | Reply to group Recent Activity: Visit Your Group Start a New Topic MARKETPLACE Going Green: Your Yahoo! Groups resource for green living Parenting Zone: Your community resource for family and home Switch to: Text-Only, Daily Digest • Unsubscribe • Terms of Use. __,_._,___

1 0

FW: [wvec-board] Fwd: Rare Earth PBS report
by Grubb, Karen 15 Dec '09

15 Dec '09

Other problems with green industry. From: wvec-board(a)yahoogroups.com [mailto:wvec-board@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of larryvthomas(a)aol.com Sent: Tuesday, December 15, 2009 8:19 PM To: wvhcboard(a)yahoogroups.com; wvec-board(a)yahoogroups.com Subject: [wvec-board] Fwd: Rare Earth PBS report Last evening, PBS Newshour did a report on rare earth production in China and its relationship to the environment. The report can be viewed at http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/asia/july-dec09/china_12-14.html and the transcript is included below. Eye opener. PBS NEWSHOUR REPORT AIR DATE Dec. 14, 2009 Are Rare Earth Minerals Too Costly for the Environment? LINDSEY HILSUM: It doesn't look very green. Rare earth processing in China is a messy, dangerous, polluting business. It uses toxic chemicals, acids, sulfates, ammonia. The workers have little or no protection. But, without rare earth, Copenhagen means nothing. You buy a Prius hybrid car and think you're saving the planet. But each motor contains a kilo of neodymium and each battery more than 10 kilos of lanthanum, rare earth elements from China. Green campaigners love wind turbines, but the permanent magnets used to manufacture a 3-megawatt turbine contain some two tons of rare earth. The head of China's Rare Earth Research Institute shows me one of those permanent magnets. He's well aware of the issues. ZHAO ZENGQI, Baotou Rare Earth Research Institute: The environmental problems include air emissions with harmful elements, such as fluorine and sulfur, wastewater that contains excessive acid, and radioactive materials, too. China meets 95 percent of the world's demand for rare earth, and most of the separation and extraction is done here. So, the pollution stays in China, too. LINDSEY HILSUM: The authorities gave us a DVD of Baiyunebo in Inner Mongolia, where most of the world's rare earth is mined, along with iron ore. They wouldn't let us film it ourselves. But at Baotou, 100 miles away, we found the frozen tailing lake where rare earth mixes with mud, waiting for processing at nearby factories. Technologies we all use, like computers, mobile phones and energy-saving light bulbs use rare earths processed here. And local villagers whose farmland has been ruined by seepage from the lake pay the price. WANG CUN GUANG, farmer: The Baotou Environmental Protection Bureau tested our water, and they concluded that it wasn't fit for people or animals to drink or for irrigation. LINDSEY HILSUM: For those who remember the old life, it's hard to understand. The authorities pay compensation, acknowledging that the land has been ruined, but they haven't yet relocated the villagers. JIA BAO CHENG, farmer: Rare earth is the country's resource, but small people like us need to eat, too. We live on farming, but the crops no longer grow, and we will go hungry. LINDSEY HILSUM: At a rare earth conference in Hong Kong, the talk is of how to reduce dependence on China, which achieved 95 percent dominance by undercutting other producers. MARK SMITH, CEO, Molycorp Minerals: If the purpose is to lower our dependence on foreign oil, and all We're doing is asking that we put hybrid cars on the road that need Chinese rare earth materials, aren't we changing, you know, inter-trading one dependence for another? LINDSEY HILSUM: High on the frozen steppe of Inner Mongolia, a huge wind farm. China is aiming to be the world leader in wind energy. Chinese negotiators at Copenhagen may resist political commitments, but the government is already subsidizing new technologies to boost the economy and be sustainable. Deal or no deal at Copenhagen, there's going to be an increased demand for wind turbines, both inside China and outside. But what the Chinese want to ensure is that they're not just providing the essential raw materials, the rare earths, and doing the manufacturing, but that they also have access to the most advanced low-carbon technologies. We were shown plans for what they're calling the Silicon Valley of rare earth, a high-tech industrial park in Baotou to attract international investors. This year, there was an outcry when the Chinese said they would restrict the export of rare earth to conserve their supply, and to make foreign companies produce their high-end technologies here in China. ZHAO ZENGQI: Although China has the largest reserves, we only have 50 percent of global deposits. We are supplying too much rare earth, and it's not sustainable, so we must restrict export. LINDSEY HILSUM: The writing on the wall says: Become the leader of the world in rare earth industry. But China can't produce enough for everyone anymore, and if governments are serious about low-carbon technologies, other countries will have to start producing. MARK SMITH: I think that, if we don't get a couple of projects up and running very, very quickly, there's going to be very severe shortage of rare earths in the world, and all of these clean-energy technologies that we're legislating and trying to implement through policy changes are not going to be possible. LINDSEY HILSUM: Champions of a low-carbon future have yet to wake up to the environmental price Chinese workers and villagers are paying. At Copenhagen, politicians talk of cutting carbon emissions, but they can't meet any targets without rare earth, and that means a sustainable supply, and not all from China. __._,_.___ Reply to sender <mailto:larryvthomas@aol.com?subject=Fwd:%20Rare%20Earth%20PBS%20report> | Reply to group <mailto:wvec-board@yahoogroups.com?subject=Fwd:%20Rare%20Earth%20PBS%20r eport> Messages in this topic <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/wvec-board/message/1241;_ylc=X3oDMTM1dm45 dWJjBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzIxNTg0MDQxBGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTM2NTM5MgRtc2dJ ZAMxMjQxBHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA3Z0cGMEc3RpbWUDMTI2MDkyNjQwMgR0cGNJZAMxMjQx> (1) Recent Activity: Visit Your Group <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/wvec-board;_ylc=X3oDMTJmYzhuN3NuBF9TAzk3M zU5NzE0BGdycElkAzIxNTg0MDQxBGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTM2NTM5MgRzZWMDdnRsBHNsawN2Z 2hwBHN0aW1lAzEyNjA5MjY0MDI-> Start a New Topic <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/wvec-board/post;_ylc=X3oDMTJmMWt2cTQwBF9T Azk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzIxNTg0MDQxBGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTM2NTM5MgRzZWMDZnRyBHNs awNudHBjBHN0aW1lAzEyNjA5MjY0MDI-> . Web Bug from http://geo.yahoo.com/serv?s=97359714/grpId=21584041/grpspId=1705365392/m sgId=1241/stime=1260926402/nc1=3848614/nc2=5170420/nc3=5807836<http://ww w.mailscanner.tv/1x1spacer.gif> __,_._,___

1 0

gas
by Jim Sconyers 14 Dec '09

14 Dec '09

Exxon buys XTO - all over NPR - because of XTO's place in gas market - fracking mentioned in passing, mostly as how it makes more gas available Jim Sconyers jim_scon(a)yahoo.com 304.698.9628 Remember: Mother Nature bats last.

1 0

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

EC December 2009