EC July 2011

ec@lists.wvsierraclub.org

16 participants
34 discussions

IS SHALE GAS A PIPE(LINE) DREAM?
by William V. DePaulo, Esq. 21 Jul '11

21 Jul '11

Is Shale Gas a Pipedream? Billions for Infrastructure Needed Ken Silverstein <http://www.energybiz.com/author/ken-silverstein> | Jul 21, 2011 [image: Share/Save]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.energybiz.com%2Fart…> <http://www.energybiz.com/article/11/07/shale-gas-pipedream?utm_source=2011_…> Don't get starry-eyed over all that projected shale-gas. It's one thing to dig it out. It's another to transport it. And at least one trade group says that massive amounts of investment must now go into creating the pipelines that would carry that fuel. That's a huge task. But add in the concerns of community organizations that fear such development would not just disrupt their local ecologies but also increase the dangers from pipeline accidents. While that angst is legitimate and must be addressed by pipeline companies, shale-gas has the potential to supply energy here for the next century. "The good news is that the natural gas industry has a proven track record of constructing and financing this level of infrastructure," says Don Santa, chief executive of the Interstate Natural Gas Association of America.<http://www.ingaa.org/15391.aspx> Santa's organization commissioned ICF International<http://www.ingaa.org/Foundation/Studies/7828/9115.aspx?layoutChange=Print&C…>to review the country's anticipated pipeline infrastructure needs in a world where unconventional forms of gas such as shale gas are expected to make up two-thirds of the total natural gas mix by 2035. It makes a few assumptions that range from a price of $4-$7 per million Btus as well as an increase of 1.3 percent in the expected electricity demand per year for at least a decade. To get there, the United States and Canada will require an average yearly investment of $8.2 billion, or $205 billion over the next quarter century. Santa notes that the industry has invested $8 billion during a three year period from 2006 to 2010 -- a "strong indication" that it will continue to make the necessary capital allocations if the regulatory environment permits. By 2030, the U.S. and Canada will need approximately 29,000 to 62,000 miles of additional natural gas pipelines as well as 370 billion to 600 billion cubic feet of additional storage capacity, says the study. If the country does not to rise to the challenge, it would create supply disruptions and price volatility would increase. But developers are hard-pressed to invest if the impediments to construction are too onerous and there is not enough gas to keep the new lines filled to capacity. Developers also want to make it easier for gas distributors to enter into long-term contracts that help pay for the lines. Regulators are, largely, sympathetic. They are concerned about potential energy shortages and any subsequent rolling blackouts. To cope, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission<http://www.ferc.gov/industries/gas/indus-act/pipelines.asp>is trying to get all regulatory agencies to coordinate their schedules and reviews. The goal is not to subvert the permitting process but rather, to streamline it. "To meet the growing demand for natural gas, the Commission must continue to respond quickly when companies propose to expand and construct needed pipelines and related facilities," says FERC. "The Commission has expedited the certification of natural gas pipelines by having Commission staff actively participate in projects (that pre-file)." More conciliation The first step for developers is to determine whether new pipelines are needed and whether the price of natural gas supports construction such that companies can obtain firm contracts to finance them. The next step is to propose a route the line will take. Overall, there still must not be any significant affect on either the natural habitat or the landowners who lease their rights-of-way. Those precautions will inevitably lead to the rerouting of any pipeline system, although in some cases the federal government may exercise its right of eminent domain. Under the best of circumstances, the opposition to new construction is intense. The process to get the permits and to overcome the environmental and zoning questions is lengthy and expensive. And in the aftermath of a gas pipeline explosion that killed 7 people in Northern California a couple years ago, the outcry for reforms has magnified. "The American public is apprehensive about natural gas pipelines - and understandably so," says Santo, with the Interstate Natural Gas Association of America. "One accident is too many. Still, despite recent accidents, pipelines are the safest way to transport energy -- safer than rails or roads -- according to the U.S. Department of Transportation." Generally, the need for new gas supplies and the infrastructure to carry the gas remains a top priority. Achieving a consensus among stakeholders is key. Shale-gas producers are at the heart of this debate and have been asked to be more conciliatory and share the chemicals they are using to drill. Likewise, the pipeline developers that will transport the fuel must acquiesce to safety and environmental concerns. Only then can the natural gas sector fulfill its promise. EnergyBiz Insider has been named Honorable Mention for Best Online Column by Media Industry News, MIN. Ken Silverstein has also been named one of the Top Economics Journalists by Wall Street Economists. Follow Ken on www.twitter.com/ken_silverstein energybizinsider(a)energycentral.com. -- William V. DePaulo, Esq. 179 Summers Street, Suite 232 Charleston, WV 25301-2163 Tel 304-342-5588 Fax 304-342-5505 william.depaulo(a)gmail.com www.passeggiata.com

2 1

Fwd: E&E Daily: Industry showers members of Congress with contributions
by Jim Sconyers 20 Jul '11

20 Jul '11

---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Lisa Evans <levans(a)earthjustice.org> Date: Wed, Jul 20, 2011 at 9:01 AM Subject: E&E Daily: Industry showers members of Congress with contributions To: COAL-COMBUSTION-WASTE(a)lists.sierraclub.org Environment and Energy Daily story on political contributions from the coal industry, highlighting McKinley- author of the House coal ash bill. COAL: Industry showers members of Congress with contributions (07/20/2011) Manuel Quinones, E&E reporter Coal-related companies have spent tens of millions of dollars in campaign donations and lobbying to push back against what many industry leaders and lawmakers call the Obama administration's war on coal. The industry's allies in Congress are fighting back -- with rhetoric and legislative attempts to handcuff environmental regulations. In a recent hearing on legislation to regulate the disposal of coal ash and pre-empt U.S. EPA rulemaking, Rep. David McKinley (R-W.Va.) spoke about the economic benefits of the American coal industry and warned against "further attacks in this war on coal." "It's gotta stop," he said. McKinley is not only one of coal's most ardent and vocal supporters, he has also emerged as one of the top recipients of industry donations. The congressman has received more than $200,000 in electricity and coal-related contributions so far this year, according to figures compiled by the Environmental Integrity Project. McKinley's take, EIP says, is much higher than other heavy hitters on the House Energy and Commerce Committee, including Chairman Fred Upton (R-Mich.) with $96,650 and Rep. Ed Whitfield (R-Ky.) with $51,250 in electricity- and coal-related contributions. McKinley raised a total of $300,455 in the second quarter of 2011 and more than twice that so far this year, with the help of donations from the political action committees of energy giants Koch Industries Inc., Arch Coal Co., Consol Energy Inc. and Alpha Natural Resources Inc. Alpha CEO Kevin Crutchfield, who recently led his company's purchase of Massey Energy Co., gave McKinley $1,000 in April. "I'm going to defend the coal industry all across America," McKinley said. "Twenty-five of our states make coal, mine it and ship it to the 48 that burn it. And I think it's time we stand up for those jobs." Rep. Nick Rahall (D-W.Va.) has also been a top coal industry supporter, ushering legislation through the House this month to undercut EPA's crackdown of mountaintop removal mining pollution in Appalachia. This year, he has received $2,000 from the National Mining Association's COALPAC, $7,500 from the United Mine Workers' Coal Miners PAC and and $2,500 from Arch's ARCHPAC. Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) is touting his support for coal as part of his campaign to secure re-election in 2012. Like Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.), Manchin has become one of coal's top backers in the upper chamber of Congress. And the industry is rewarding him handsomely this year -- he received $5,000 from the NMA's COALPAC, $3,500 from the UMW and $2,500 from Peabody Energy Corp.'s PEABODY PAC. Like Rahall and McKinley, Manchin has received plenty of donations from coal burning utility PACs. Dominion Resources Inc. has poured $3,500 into the senator's coffers, American Electric Power Co. Inc. has provided $5,000, and the Edison Electric Institute has chipped in $2,500. Manchin is the only Democratic senator to have received money this year -- $5,000 -- from Koch Industries' KOCHPAC, which tends to favor conservative contenders. The National Mining Association has also been generous with Ohio Republican Reps. Bob Gibbs and Bill Johnson, two freshmen from coal country who have blasted EPA's Clean Water Act oversight of coal mining operations. Both lawmakers have received several thousand dollars from the NMA's COALPAC and MINEPAC. Mining PAC dollars have flowed as well to McKinley, Upton, House Appropriations Chairman Hal Rogers (R-Ky.) and Rep. John Shimkus (R-Ill.). Shimkus -- who this month helped broker a bipartisan agreement on coal-ash disposal, which the industry supports and EPA opposes -- received $3,500 from ARCHPAC and $5,000 from Exelon Corp. Watchdogs cry foul Overall, between January and May of this year, Alpha's ALPHAPAC doled out $120,500, the NMA's COALPAC and MINEPAC $143,000 combined and the Edison Electric Institute $217,000. While lawmakers insist campaign donations do not influence their vote, watchdog groups like EIP see a direct correlation between campaign donations and the hostility many lawmakers show for increased regulation. "No doubt the Congressmen receiving these large sums are sincere in their support for legislation that coal interests want so badly," the EIP said in its report. "But are politicians who raise such large sums of money from coal the best qualified to rewrite regulations that affect the industry?" In another new report, Polluting Democracy: Coal Plays Dirty on the Hill, Greenpeace listed 15 lawmakers -- including House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.), Rep. Jason Altmire (D-Pa.) and Rep. Michelle Bachmann (R-Minn.), a presidential candidate -- who are in particular supporters of the fossil fuel energy industry. Almost all of them have also been top recipients of industry dollars, the report said. "We must urge our representatives to let EPA do its job," said Greenpeace senior legislative representative Kyle Ash, "by protecting us from dangerous toxins produced by coal-fired power plants." Lobbying dollars flow For the industry and its supporters, EPA is going beyond its mandate by working on numerous, burdensome regulations that will cost thousands of American jobs. As a result, companies and associations are spending big dollars to make sure lawmakers know what's at stake. When it comes to lobbying Congress, the National Mining Association has spent more than $1 million this year, AEP more than $5 million and Edison Electric Institute roughly $4 million, according to the latest numbers, which are sure to increase when new quarterly lobbying disclosure reports come due today. Lisa Evans Senior Administrative Counsel Earthjustice 21 Ocean Ave. Marblehead, MA 01945 T: (781) 631-4119 F: (212) 918-1556 www.earthjustice.org *please consider the environment before printing The information contained in this email message may be privileged, confidential and protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, any dissemination, distribution or copying is strictly prohibited. If you think that you have received this email message in error, please notify the sender by reply email and delete the message and any attachments. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - To unsubscribe from the COAL-COMBUSTION-WASTE list, send any message to: COAL-COMBUSTION-WASTE-signoff-request(a)LISTS.SIERRACLUB.ORG Check out our Listserv Lists support site for more information: http://www.sierraclub.org/lists/faq.asp -- Jim Sconyers jimscon(a)gmail.com 304.698.9628 Remember, Mother Nature bats last.

1 0

Fwd: FYI - PJM Reform and Coal Retirements in your state
by James Kotcon 16 Jul '11

16 Jul '11

Attached is a report on reforms to the regional planning process used by PJM to predict electricity demand. The report discusses issues related to energy efficiency, renewables, and the shut down of old coal-fired plants to illustrate the need for reform of the planning process used to determine the need for transmission lines like PATH. I recommend reading this report, it is long but worthwhile, as we will need to understand some of these issues as we move forward with plans for our overall energy campaigns. One aspect I found most striking was the concept of "Reliability Must Run" contracts. For example, several old dirty plants like Albright or that must install scrubbers or shut down (under the new rules EPA finalized last week). These would normally be shut down as it is not cost effective to install scrubbers on such old plants. But PJM could order them to stay open under an RMR contract and install scrubbers at ratepayer expense if PJM determines that they are needed for reliability purposes. Such RMR contracts would keep old dirty plants on line longer, raise consumer costs, reduce the incentives for renewables, and distort the market signal that utilities need to plan properly. So including energy efficiency and renewables in the PJM planning model is important to avoid the needless expense of installing scrubbers on plants that are not cost-effective. I am not sure we need to go to this level of detail for our public meetings, but we certainly need more people who understand the implications of this as we develop energy campaigns. Enjoy! Jim Kotcon >>> Jim Sconyers <jimscon(a)gmail.com> 7/16/2011 10:08 AM >>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Craig Segall <Craig.Segall(a)sierraclub.org> Date: Thu, Jul 14, 2011 at 4:56 PM Subject: FYI - PJM Reform and Coal Retirements in your state To: nancymoore.desierra(a)gmail.com, gwynjones(a)aol.com, jack.darin(a)sierraclub.org, dmaidenberg(a)gmail.com, alicehowell(a)insightbb.com, ron.henry(a)mdsierra.org, awoiwodesc(a)earthlink.net, jeff.tittel(a)verizon.net, vkloepfer(a)suddenlink.net, sierrabob(a)oh.rr.com, jeff.schmidt(a)dejazzd.com, kdpendleton1(a)aol.com, glenbesa(a)gmail.com, jimscon(a)gmail.com Cc: Mark Kresowik <Mark.Kresowik(a)sierraclub.org>, Josh Stebbins <Josh.Stebbins(a)sierraclub.org> Hi all, For those of you I haven't yet had the chance to work with, let me introduce myself: I'm one of the attorneys on the national law staff, where I work mostly on greenhouse gas and regulatory issues. As part of that work, I've been focused lately on PJM (www.pjm.com) which, as you likely know, is the regional transmission grid operator for much of the mid-Atlantic and midwest. I'm writing because PJM is working on reforming its processes to allow it to better handle both the ramp-up of clean energy measures and the retirement of a large chunk of old coal generation. Because PJM covers your states, I want to make sure that you know what Mark Kresowik, of the coal campaign, Josh Stebbins, in the law program, and I are up to as we work on these issues. Basically, PJM's existing transmission planning process does not allow it to react nimbly to coal plant retirements or to new clean energy opportunities -- which could delay both of them, and add to ratepayer costs. PJM has launched a reform process, through its Regional Planning Process Task Force (the RPPTF) -- see http://pjm.com/committees-and-groups/task-forces/rpptf.aspx for more -- that would help fix many of these problems. To succeed, PJM must move its reforms through a series of internal committees this fall, which are dominated by generation interests, and then file its proposed changes with FERC this December. We're closely monitoring the process, and are working with national allies, including the Project for a Sustainable FERC, NRDC, Earthjustice, Audubon, and the Piedmont Environmental Council, to advocate for useful reforms. As part of that work, we commissioned an expert report on transmission reform, which we've shared with each of the PJM state's utility commissions and ratepayer advocates. I'm attaching that report and a short memo summarizing its recommendations. We'd, of course, appreciate any help you can offer in generating positive state pressure on PJM to keep moving down the path to reform. I will certainly keep you informed as PJM moves forward, and can schedule a call to discuss possible grasstops organizing options if you are interested -- just drop me a line. Chees, Craig Craig Holt Segall Associate Attorney Sierra Club Environmental Law Program 50 F St NW, Eighth Floor Washington, DC, 20001 (202)-548-4597 (202)-547-6009 (fax) Craig.Segall(a)sierraclub.org CONFIDENTIAL LEGAL COMMUNICATION/WORK PRODUCT This e-mail, and its attachments, may contain privileged and confidential attorney-client communications and confidential attorney work product. If you received this e-mail inadvertently, please notify me and delete all versions on your system. Thank you. -- Jim Sconyers jimscon(a)gmail.com 304.698.9628 Remember, Mother Nature bats last.

1 0

FW: [ACTNET-FRAC-NEWS] Fw: Agenda Item 5: Energy Policy Documents for Board
by Grubb, Karen 15 Jul '11

15 Jul '11

From: National Hydrofracking Team [mailto:ACTNET-FRAC-NEWS@LISTS.SIERRACLUB.ORG] On Behalf Of Jessica Helm Sent: Friday, July 15, 2011 12:36 PM To: ACTNET-FRAC-NEWS(a)LISTS.SIERRACLUB.ORG Subject: [ACTNET-FRAC-NEWS] Fw: Agenda Item 5: Energy Policy Documents for Board Jessica Helm 631 219 6449 helm_jessica(a)yahoo.com ~~Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of the cancer cell~~ - Edward Abbey ----- Forwarded Message ---- From: David Scott <david.scott(a)SIERRACLUB.ORG> To: BOD-OPEN(a)LISTS.SIERRACLUB.ORG Sent: Thu, July 14, 2011 7:44:32 PM Subject: Agenda Item 5: Energy Policy Documents for Board Colleagues, I will be offering the following motion on the July 25 board call: “The board of directors adopts the proposed revisions to the Energy Resources Policy. The following policies are sunsetted because they have been superseded by the new comprehensive policy: Energy Promotion – May 2-3, 1970; Energy Conservation – January 20-21, 1973; Energy Research & Development – January 12-13, 1974; Solar Energy – April 1-2, 1976 [which itself superseded an earlier policy on this subject of Dec. 13-14, 1975; Solar Energy – February 3-4, 1979; Energy Conservation & Research – July 21-22, 1979; Building Energy Conservation – July 21-22, 1979; Global Warming – May 7-8, 1988” I am attaching the following documents with this message, which is also attached: • Energy Policy Rewrite (sent June 29th) • Cover letter for energy policy, sent June 29th • “The BoD sunsets the following policies…” • ECL-Bioenergy explanation for the Board These documents will all be posted on the Board documents site. Regarding the policies to be sunsetted, Gene Coan pointed out that these are now redundant and were superseded by the 2006 Energy Resources Policy – this is really just a housekeeping measure. Regarding the new, revised policy, a great deal of work has gone into these proposed amendments. I urge you to read them over so that you can raise any questions or concerns before the July 25th call. The comments we received fill nearly 100 pages. If anyone wants that entire file, you’re welcome to read them – just contact either Bruce Hamilton or me and we’ll get them to you. But it’s a big file. The June 29th cover letter briefly explains the rationale for the proposed revisions. The board has received two recent messages about the proposed revisions. One message concerns the forest bioenergy language. Some activists would like less restrictive language to allow for ecological restoration projects. The attached “ECL-Bioenergy memo” responds to this concern, which gets into our member-adopted policy opposing commercial logging on federal lands. A second message, from Alan Carlton, Ed Mainland and Jim Stewart, requests an additional comment period. I will be sending you a response to that message in the next few days. The many comments we received were read thoughtfully and closely. This revision process began last year, and revisions have already been discussed by the board once. Both Mike and Bruce Hamilton have been involved, along with two volunteer campaign leaders and other Club energy experts. The most substantial changes are in the transitional fuels section. Again, if you have questions or concerns, please email them to the board list or feel free to contact any members of the drafting team, who are listed on the June 29th cover letter. I look forward to our discussion on the 25th. Dave - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - To unsubscribe from the BOD-OPEN list, send any message to: BOD-OPEN-signoff-request(a)LISTS.SIERRACLUB.ORG Check out our Listserv Lists support site for more information: http://www.sierraclub.org/lists/faq.asp - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - This email list is associated with the Hydrofracking Team on the Sierra Club's Activist Network. Join the Hydrofracking Team at http://sc.org/frac. This list is open to the public and subscribers are not moderated. Please be aware that information you share may be forwarded to or read by others beyond this list. To unsubscribe from the ACTNET-FRAC-NEWS list, send any message to: ACTNET-FRAC-NEWS-signoff-request(a)LISTS.SIERRACLUB.ORG Check out our Listserv Lists support site for more information: http://www.sierraclub.org/lists/faq.asp To view the Sierra Club List Terms & Conditions, see: http://www.sierraclub.org/lists/terms.asp

1 0

Tomblin's Executive Order
by Jonathan Rosenbaum 14 Jul '11

14 Jul '11

Attached is Tomblin's executive order concerning gas drilling. -Jonathan

6 10

Robert Kennedy, Jr. Accepts Post on DEC Fracking Panel
by Frank Young 14 Jul '11

14 Jul '11

"Because of the reckless conduct of the industry over the past several years, as well as my growing concerns about the greenhouse gas impacts associated with shale gas extraction and about the potential for the investment and infrastructure required by aggressive natural gas exploitation to divert resources away from the development of alternative fuels, I have changed my thinking and have asked members of the industry to stop using any statements I may have made in the past in support of natural gas. My position now is that I oppose moving forward with permitting of all new horizontal hydrofracking activities until more responsible leadership emerges within the industry, best practices are required by law, and state and federal regulatory agencies have the staff and resources to provide reliable oversight."- Robert F. Kennedy (underlined emphasis added- F.Y.) ----- Original Message ----- From: Judith Cartisano To: ACTNET-FRAC-NEWS(a)LISTS.SIERRACLUB.ORG Sent: Thursday, July 14, 2011 11:01 AM Subject: [ACTNET-FRAC-NEWS] Robert Kennedy Jr. Robert Kennedy, Jr. Accepts Post on DEC Fracking Panel View more images on our Flickr site Will advocate for rigorous environmental protections On Friday, July 1, 2011, NYS Department of Environmental Conservation announced its new recommendations regarding limits to be placed on high-volume hydraulic fracturing in New York State, including a ban on hydrofracking in the New York City and Syracuse watersheds, over primary aquifers and on state lands. In addition, DEC Commissioner Joe Martens announced the formation of an Hydraulic Fracturing Advisory Panel charged with developing recommendations to ensure proper oversight and enforcement with respect to hydraulic fracturing activities and mitigation of impacts to local governments and communities. Commissioner Martens asked Robert Kennedy, Jr., as the President of Waterkeeper Alliance, to be a member of the panel, along with several industry representatives, as well as representatives from other environmental organizations including NRDC and the Environmental Defense Fund. Governor Cuomo has assured Kennedy that his goal is to have DEC put in place the most rigorous regulations in the 50 states governing shale gas extraction activities in New York. In addition, the Governor and Commissioner Martens want to make certain that oversight and enforcement is adequately funded by the industry itself. Having been invited to play an inside role in guiding the State's efforts to put adequate protections in place to ensure that hydraulic fracturing will be done safely and responsibly in New York, Kennedy decided that he would be in the strongest position to negotiate on behalf of protecting the environment as a member of the panel. "I felt that it would be counter-productive and chicken-hearted for the Waterkeeper Alliance to sit on the sidelines and allow an industry-dominated panel attempt to influence the development of a less than fully protective regulatory framework, and then lob bombs at the final work product." Kennedy is committed to playing an active and forceful role on the panel to make certain that voices speaking for the environment and in particular, for our precious water resources, are heard, and to ensure that the best possible regulations and financial assurances are part of the regulatory protocols. This role is consistent with the position on the natural gas industry that Kennedy has taken since this spring, when he re-examined his support for natural gas as a reasonable substitute for the destructive practice of mountain top coal mining. "Because of the reckless conduct of the industry over the past several years, as well as my growing concerns about the greenhouse gas impacts associated with shale gas extraction and about the potential for the investment and infrastructure required by aggressive natural gas exploitation to divert resources away from the development of alternative fuels, I have changed my thinking and have asked members of the industry to stop using any statements I may have made in the past in support of natural gas. My position now is that I oppose moving forward with permitting of all new horizontal hydrofracking activities until more responsible leadership emerges within the industry, best practices are required by law, and state and federal regulatory agencies have the staff and resources to provide reliable oversight." - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - This email list is associated with the Hydrofracking Team on the Sierra Club's Activist Network. Join the Hydrofracking Team at http://sc.org/frac. This list is open to the public and subscribers are not moderated. Please be aware that information you share may be forwarded to or read by others beyond this list. To unsubscribe from the ACTNET-FRAC-NEWS list, send any message to: ACTNET-FRAC-NEWS-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

Re: [EC] Fwd: Tomblin's Executive Order
by DSGJr＠aol.com 14 Jul '11

14 Jul '11

Maloney fired the first salvo with his interview with Ry Rivard in the Daily Mail. The acting governor fired back with his executive order. I see the press conference as the third salvo. He began by blasting the EPA (again) over the Spruce permit, and blasted them again later in responding to a reporter's question. And he assembled a bunch of legislators and industry officials to surround him at the podium. Maloney has fired back, charging the acting governor is not showing leadership. This will probably escalate by itself. But Chuck's idea of providing Maloney with the Sierra Club position paper is not a bad one. In the interview Maloney gave to Ry, he has already come close to supporting some of it. don In a message dated 7/13/2011 9:47:27 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, fyoung(a)mountain.net writes: Is there a way to bait them into engaging in a political game of "out Marcellus" one another? ----- Original Message ----- From: "Chuck Wyrostok" <wyro(a)appalight.com> To: "'Jim Sconyers'" <jimscon(a)gmail.com>; "'James Kotcon'" <jkotcon(a)wvu.edu> Cc: <DSGJr(a)aol.com>; <ec(a)osenergy.org>; <jbc329(a)earthlink.net> Sent: Wednesday, July 13, 2011 10:41 PM Subject: Re: [EC] Fwd: Tomblin's Executive Order I'm thinking we should send our position paper to Maloney to give him an complete picture of what's needed...c Chuck Wyrostok Sierra Club Outreach Organizer Toll free 877 252 0257 E: outreach(a)marcellus-wv.com www.marcellus-wv.com -----Original Message----- From: Jim Sconyers [mailto:jimscon@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, July 13, 2011 12:13 AM To: James Kotcon Cc: ec(a)osenergy.org; wyro(a)appalight.com; DSGJr(a)aol.com; jbc329(a)earthlink.net Subject: Re: [EC] Fwd: Tomblin's Executive Order I'd say this is classic co-opting. On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 5:12 PM, James Kotcon <jkotcon(a)wvu.edu> wrote: > Thank you Jonathon. Not sure how you got this, but it makes interesting reading. > > At first glance this seems like a major step forward, but the cynic in me read it again. > > * Nothing in here requires permits for or limits air emissions. > > * Nothing requires a permit for water withdrawals. This order give the operator the authority to submit a plan, and as long as the plan meets the methods approved by DEP, DEP can not deny or reject a plan submitted by the operator. > > * Nothing prohibits on-site burial of pit wastes. It says pits can be "managed on site in a manner otherwise approved by the Secretary of the WVDEP", and DEP currently approves on-site burial? > > So I am wondering if it is time to blast this proposal as too little, too late, and a prescription for continued outrage among citizens and uncertainty for industry. It is a classic example of Tomblin's continuing failure to provide leadership. > > JBK > >>>> Jonathan Rosenbaum <freesource(a)cheat.org> 7/12/2011 4:10 PM >>> > Attached is Tomblin's executive order concerning gas drilling. > > -Jonathan > > > _______________________________________________ > EC mailing list > EC(a)osenergy.org > http://osenergy.org/mailman/listinfo/ec > -- Jim Sconyers jimscon(a)gmail.com 304.698.9628 Remember, Mother Nature bats last. _______________________________________________ EC mailing list EC(a)osenergy.org http://osenergy.org/mailman/listinfo/ec

2 1

Re: [EC] Fwd: Tomblin's Executive Order
by John Christensen 13 Jul '11

13 Jul '11

Sounds like a plan....see how strict they will go to get elected and how much they will attempt to protect our water and air as an afterthought -----Original Message----- >From: Frank Young <fyoung(a)mountain.net> >Sent: Jul 13, 2011 9:47 PM >To: Chuck Wyrostok <wyro(a)appalight.com>, 'Jim Sconyers' <jimscon(a)gmail.com>, 'James Kotcon' <jkotcon(a)wvu.edu> >Cc: DSGJr(a)aol.com, ec(a)osenergy.org, jbc329(a)earthlink.net >Subject: Re: [EC] Fwd: Tomblin's Executive Order > >Is there a way to bait them into engaging in a political game of "out >Marcellus" one another? > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Chuck Wyrostok" <wyro(a)appalight.com> >To: "'Jim Sconyers'" <jimscon(a)gmail.com>; "'James Kotcon'" <jkotcon(a)wvu.edu> >Cc: <DSGJr(a)aol.com>; <ec(a)osenergy.org>; <jbc329(a)earthlink.net> >Sent: Wednesday, July 13, 2011 10:41 PM >Subject: Re: [EC] Fwd: Tomblin's Executive Order > > >I'm thinking we should send our position paper to Maloney to give him an >complete picture of what's needed...c > >Chuck Wyrostok >Sierra Club Outreach Organizer >Toll free 877 252 0257 >E: outreach(a)marcellus-wv.com >www.marcellus-wv.com > > >-----Original Message----- >From: Jim Sconyers [mailto:jimscon@gmail.com] >Sent: Wednesday, July 13, 2011 12:13 AM >To: James Kotcon >Cc: ec(a)osenergy.org; wyro(a)appalight.com; DSGJr(a)aol.com; jbc329(a)earthlink.net >Subject: Re: [EC] Fwd: Tomblin's Executive Order > >I'd say this is classic co-opting. > >On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 5:12 PM, James Kotcon <jkotcon(a)wvu.edu> wrote: >> Thank you Jonathon. Not sure how you got this, but it makes interesting >reading. >> >> At first glance this seems like a major step forward, but the cynic in me >read it again. >> >> * Nothing in here requires permits for or limits air emissions. >> >> * Nothing requires a permit for water withdrawals. This order give the >operator the authority to submit a plan, and as long as the plan meets the >methods approved by DEP, DEP can not deny or reject a plan submitted by the >operator. >> >> * Nothing prohibits on-site burial of pit wastes. It says pits can be >"managed on site in a manner otherwise approved by the Secretary of the >WVDEP", and DEP currently approves on-site burial? >> >> So I am wondering if it is time to blast this proposal as too little, too >late, and a prescription for continued outrage among citizens and >uncertainty for industry. It is a classic example of Tomblin's continuing >failure to provide leadership. >> >> JBK >> >>>>> Jonathan Rosenbaum <freesource(a)cheat.org> 7/12/2011 4:10 PM >>> >> Attached is Tomblin's executive order concerning gas drilling. >> >> -Jonathan >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> EC mailing list >> EC(a)osenergy.org >> http://osenergy.org/mailman/listinfo/ec >> > > > >-- >Jim Sconyers >jimscon(a)gmail.com >304.698.9628 > >Remember, Mother Nature bats last. > > >_______________________________________________ >EC mailing list >EC(a)osenergy.org >http://osenergy.org/mailman/listinfo/ec > > John Christensen Mountain View Solar and Wind LLC 410-499-4873 cell 304-258-4733 office

1 0

Re: [EC] Fwd: Tomblin's Executive Order
by John Christensen 13 Jul '11

13 Jul '11

As a certified garbage crazy this thread is exciting to me and I have forwarded most of this to Clint Hogbin who is also very interested. In Berkeley County we have a project to change the local waste stream to a waste to fuel facility and we are working hard to get our siting plan update approved, I am on that board with Clint. My fear is that with less than normal supply coming in to LCS they will solicit this type of business to make up the difference and more, trouble for our aquifer will result, I'm afraid. I included Clint on this reply and hope we add him to the discussion from now on. JB -----Original Message----- >From: Beth Little <blittle(a)citynet.net> >Sent: Jul 13, 2011 8:14 AM >To: 'Frank Young' <fyoung(a)mountain.net>, ec(a)osenergy.org >Cc: wyro(a)appalight.com, DSGJr(a)aol.com, jbc329(a)earthlink.net >Subject: RE: [EC] Fwd: Tomblin's Executive Order > >Frank, I don't doubt that they have not been classified as hazardous, >because of all the exemptions gas development has from federal laws. That's >the problem. And I seriously doubt that a regular landfill has the >capability of testing for some of the nasties they contain, especially the >NORMs. Granted, a landfill is better than buried on site, but the landfill >in Greenbrier Co has leachate that goes into the Greenbrier River. > >-----Original Message----- >From: ec-bounces(a)osenergy.org [mailto:ec-bounces@osenergy.org] On Behalf Of >Frank Young >Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2011 10:20 PM >To: ec(a)osenergy.org >Cc: wyro(a)appalight.com; DSGJr(a)aol.com; jbc329(a)earthlink.net >Subject: Re: [EC] Fwd: Tomblin's Executive Order > be >Beth, > >By what legal determination are these drilling cuttings "hazardous >materials"? Somehow I doubt that they have been legally determined to be >hazardous materials. > >I think I'd rather see them taken to a legal landfill than disposed of on >site by the usual "fold the liner into the hole and bury" method. > >Frank > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Beth Little" <blittle(a)citynet.net> >To: "'James Kotcon'" <jkotcon(a)wvu.edu>; <ec(a)osenergy.org> >Cc: <wyro(a)appalight.com>; <DSGJr(a)aol.com>; <jbc329(a)earthlink.net> >Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2011 8:29 PM >Subject: Re: [EC] Fwd: Tomblin's Executive Order > > >> Furthermore, Leslee and I are trying to track down the facts behind >> hearing >> that the Greenbrier landfill is taking cuttings from wells in Greenbrier >> Co. >> Leslee said she heard they have a permit. If it's a permit from the DEP, >> then they are allowing hazardous materials in regular landfills. >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: ec-bounces(a)osenergy.org [mailto:ec-bounces@osenergy.org] On Behalf >> Of >> James Kotcon >> Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2011 5:12 PM >> To: ec(a)osenergy.org >> Cc: wyro(a)appalight.com; DSGJr(a)aol.com; jbc329(a)earthlink.net >> Subject: [EC] Fwd: Tomblin's Executive Order >> >> Thank you Jonathon. Not sure how you got this, but it makes interesting >> reading. >> >> At first glance this seems like a major step forward, but the cynic in me >> read it again. >> >> * Nothing in here requires permits for or limits air emissions. >> >> * Nothing requires a permit for water withdrawals. This order give the >> operator the authority to submit a plan, and as long as the plan meets the >> methods approved by DEP, DEP can not deny or reject a plan submitted by >> the >> operator. >> >> * Nothing prohibits on-site burial of pit wastes. It says pits can be >> "managed on site in a manner otherwise approved by the Secretary of the >> WVDEP", and DEP currently approves on-site burial? >> >> So I am wondering if it is time to blast this proposal as too little, too >> late, and a prescription for continued outrage among citizens and >> uncertainty for industry. It is a classic example of Tomblin's continuing >> failure to provide leadership. >> >> JBK >> >>>>> Jonathan Rosenbaum <freesource(a)cheat.org> 7/12/2011 4:10 PM >>> >> Attached is Tomblin's executive order concerning gas drilling. >> >> -Jonathan >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> EC mailing list >> EC(a)osenergy.org >> http://osenergy.org/mailman/listinfo/ec > > > >_______________________________________________ >EC mailing list >EC(a)osenergy.org >http://osenergy.org/mailman/listinfo/ec > > >----- >No virus found in this message. >Checked by AVG - www.avg.com >Version: 10.0.1390 / Virus Database: 1516/3760 - Release Date: 07/12/11 > John Christensen Mountain View Solar and Wind LLC 410-499-4873 cell 304-258-4733 office

1 0

Re: [EC] Fwd: Tomblin's Executive Order
by John Christensen 12 Jul '11

12 Jul '11

I always thought that it was considered haz mat by what was in it or potentially in it, no requirement to test the flowback or cuttings to determine the toxicity before disposing... -----Original Message----- >From: Frank Young <fyoung(a)mountain.net> >Sent: Jul 12, 2011 9:19 PM >To: ec(a)osenergy.org >Cc: wyro(a)appalight.com, DSGJr(a)aol.com, jbc329(a)earthlink.net >Subject: Re: [EC] Fwd: Tomblin's Executive Order > >Beth, > >By what legal determination are these drilling cuttings "hazardous >materials"? Somehow I doubt that they have been legally determined to be >hazardous materials. > >I think I'd rather see them taken to a legal landfill than disposed of on >site by the usual "fold the liner into the hole and bury" method. > >Frank > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Beth Little" <blittle(a)citynet.net> >To: "'James Kotcon'" <jkotcon(a)wvu.edu>; <ec(a)osenergy.org> >Cc: <wyro(a)appalight.com>; <DSGJr(a)aol.com>; <jbc329(a)earthlink.net> >Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2011 8:29 PM >Subject: Re: [EC] Fwd: Tomblin's Executive Order > > >> Furthermore, Leslee and I are trying to track down the facts behind >> hearing >> that the Greenbrier landfill is taking cuttings from wells in Greenbrier >> Co. >> Leslee said she heard they have a permit. If it's a permit from the DEP, >> then they are allowing hazardous materials in regular landfills. >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: ec-bounces(a)osenergy.org [mailto:ec-bounces@osenergy.org] On Behalf >> Of >> James Kotcon >> Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2011 5:12 PM >> To: ec(a)osenergy.org >> Cc: wyro(a)appalight.com; DSGJr(a)aol.com; jbc329(a)earthlink.net >> Subject: [EC] Fwd: Tomblin's Executive Order >> >> Thank you Jonathon. Not sure how you got this, but it makes interesting >> reading. >> >> At first glance this seems like a major step forward, but the cynic in me >> read it again. >> >> * Nothing in here requires permits for or limits air emissions. >> >> * Nothing requires a permit for water withdrawals. This order give the >> operator the authority to submit a plan, and as long as the plan meets the >> methods approved by DEP, DEP can not deny or reject a plan submitted by >> the >> operator. >> >> * Nothing prohibits on-site burial of pit wastes. It says pits can be >> "managed on site in a manner otherwise approved by the Secretary of the >> WVDEP", and DEP currently approves on-site burial? >> >> So I am wondering if it is time to blast this proposal as too little, too >> late, and a prescription for continued outrage among citizens and >> uncertainty for industry. It is a classic example of Tomblin's continuing >> failure to provide leadership. >> >> JBK >> >>>>> Jonathan Rosenbaum <freesource(a)cheat.org> 7/12/2011 4:10 PM >>> >> Attached is Tomblin's executive order concerning gas drilling. >> >> -Jonathan >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> EC mailing list >> EC(a)osenergy.org >> http://osenergy.org/mailman/listinfo/ec > > John Christensen Mountain View Solar and Wind LLC 410-499-4873 cell 304-258-4733 office

1 0

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

EC July 2011