EC January 2012

ec@lists.wvsierraclub.org

8 participants
17 discussions

Fwd: Outrageous! Power Companies Offer $30M Bribe to the National Park Service in New Jersey Power Line Case
by Paul Wilson 29 Jan '12

29 Jan '12

please fwd this to others. thx, paul ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Keryn Newman <Keryn(a)stoppathwv.com> Date: Sat, Jan 28, 2012 at 3:33 PM Subject: Outrageous! Power Companies Offer $30M Bribe to the National Park Service in New Jersey Power Line Case To: pjgrunt(a)gmail.com Recently, the PATH Companies have requested that the National Park Service continue to hold their application to cross the Appalachian Trail, Harpers Ferry National Park and the C&O Canal in continued abeyance indefinitely. We are watching this development and will let you know when it is time to take action on the PATH EIS application. ** ** In a separate but related matter, we are asking you to please take two minutes out of your busy day to let the National Park Service know what you think about the outrageous $30M *mitigation package* offered by Public Service Gas & Electric (NJ) and PPL Electric Utilities (PA) in exchange for the Park Service issuing them a permit to cross the Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area and the Appalachian Trail with their Susquehanna-Roseland 500kV transmission project. This matters to us because it is part of the ongoing attempt by utility companies to find ways to assert corporate influence over citizen interests, inflate project costs to ratepayers, and sets a dangerous precedent for other EIS evaluations. Just as PATH was an unneeded, profiteering boondoggle, so is Susquehanna-Roseland. ** ** Back in November, the Park Service recommended *No Action* as the environmentally preferred alternative response to the Susquehanna-Roseland application. This would result in a denial of the application. In reply, the power companies offered to purchase at least $30M of inferior land adjacent to the current park and donate it to the Park Service or other environmental/conservation groups. They contend that this will somehow * mitigate* the new 200 – 380 ft. wide right-of-way and 195 ft. tall towers plowing through some of the most scenic vistas in the existing park. ** ** A deal is rumored to have been worked out between corporate lobbyists and Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar and Park Service Director Jon Jarvis. The Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER) said, *The Secretary and the Director have unofficially committed to the companies that the NPS will select Alternative 2, the alternative preferred by the companies but which is the most damaging to the resources and scenery of the parks.* ** ** In addition, the cost of the $30M *mitigation package* will be added to the cost of the transmission project that will be recovered from all electric consumers in the PJM Region in their monthly electric bills for the next 50 years. The power companies will also earn a 12.93 percent profit every year on the cost of their $30M inducement. The effect of this is that you will pay for *mitigation* of damage caused to your park by corporations who will see profit on the cost of the *mitigation *paid for by you. Private, for-profit corporations are using YOUR money to bribe a federal agency to squander YOUR national parks! ** ** We ask that you let the National Park Service know what you think about the proposition of the power companies by submitting your comments on the Environmental Impact Statement (instructions below). Comments will close on *January 31,* so your immediate action is needed! We also encourage you to forward and share this with all your friends via email, facebook or other social networking. To read more details about the situation, visit http://www.stoppathwv.com/stoppath-wv-blog.html or http://calhounpowerline.com/ ** ** To comment, visit the Susquehanna-Roseland Park Service Comment Form, http://www.parkplanning.nps.gov/commentForm.cfm?parkID=220&projectID=25147&… quickly and easily submit your comments to the Park Service online. Below is suggested text to be copied and pasted into the comments field, but as always, we encourage you to edit and personalize your message. ** ** Suggested text: As a citizen stakeholder of our national parks and an electric consumer in the PJM Interconnection region responsible for the cost of the Susquehanna Roseland transmission line project, I wholeheartedly support the *No Action* environmentally preferred Alternative 1 recommended in the draft EIS.**** ** ** It is unconscionable that the National Park Service would even consider the mitigation package offered by the applicants in return for approving their application to spoil several of our national parks. The transmission line will severely and permanently alter the park. We can never recover a natural resource that is thoughtlessly squandered in pursuit of corporate profit.**** ** ** In addition, I strongly object to the National Park Service accepting a $30M inducement from for-profit corporations in exchange for permission to lay waste to a public asset, held in trust by the NPS for the benefit of all citizens. The cost of mitigation will become the financial responsibility of myself and the 61 million other electric consumers in the PJM Interconnection region via cost allocation of the transmission rate for this project, which was approved by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. The $30M price of mitigation offered to the Park Service will be added to the cost of the transmission project, which will be reimbursed by ratepayers to the applicants over the next 50 years. In addition, the corporate investment in the transmission line will earn them a 12.93% return on the depreciating value of the mitigation package, and other assets, for each and every one of those 50 years. This proposed use of money out of my pocket to mitigate damage to my park caused by corporations, who earn a profit on this damage, is ludicrous.**** ** ** I encourage the NPS to select Alternative 1 in the final EIS. Our precious, dwindling natural resources should never be *for sale* to the highest corporate bidder.**** ** ** ** ** ** ** You have received this e-mail because you opted to do so. If you wish to unsubscribe from this mailing list please click here<http://www.fatcow.com/utils/UnSubscribeMe.bml?Name=moo.keryn&List=biglist1&…> -- Paul Wilson Sierra Club 504 Jefferson Ave Charles Town, WV 25414-1130 Phone: 304-725-4360 Cell: 304-279-1361 "There is no forward until you have gone back" ~Buddha "In all things of nature there is something of the marvelous" ~ Aristotle

1 0

Fwd: Major Victory for Clean Air: First Energy to Retire Six Coal Plants in OH, PA, and MD!
by Paul Wilson 27 Jan '12

27 Jan '12

fyi, incase you did not hear about this..... ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Verena Owen <verena_owen(a)prodigy.net> Date: Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 2:24 PM Subject: Major Victory for Clean Air: First Energy to Retire Six Coal Plants in OH, PA, and MD! To: COAL-CAMPAIGN-ALERTS(a)lists.sierraclub.org Congratulations to the Sierra Club's teams and our allies who worked hard to get this huge win! Verena Friend<http://action.sierraclub.org/site/TellAFriend?page=http%3A%2F%2Faction.sier…> View as web page<http://action.sierraclub.org/site/R?i=Ps67cfKgaYBsnol64jZcEQ>Sent to verena_owen(a)prodigy.net. Not you? Sign up here<http://action.sierraclub.org/site/R?i=0jhmfCiy6VzQYXmIeA8elQ> . [image: Sierra Club Press Release] ------------------------------ [image: Share this page on Facebook]<http://action.sierraclub.org/site/R?i=z_OjMQMBT4pXb5hgvT468A>[image: Share this page on Twitter]<http://action.sierraclub.org/site/R?i=80dXhSVF441wo2x1t_mt-Q>[image: Share this page with other services]<http://action.sierraclub.org/site/R?i=-1qUdaQ07d2abeL1k1dLdg> *FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE* *January 26, 2012* *Contact:* Claire Orphan, Sierra Club 312.251.1680 x146 or claire.orphan(a)sierraclub.org *Major Victory for Clean Air: First Energy to Retire Six Coal Plants* *Utility to retire six coal-fired power plants, following national trend of coal losing ground to clean energy* *Cleveland, OH* – In a huge win for clean air and public health, First Energy announced this morning that the company will retire six of its dirtiest coal-fired power plants. These plants, located in Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Maryland, will stop burning coal by September 1, 2012. First Energy announced that the following plants will be retired: Bay Shore Plant, Units 2-4, Oregon, Ohio; Eastlake Plant, Eastlake, Ohio; Ashtabula Plant, Ashtabula, Ohio; Lake Shore Plant, Cleveland, Ohio; Armstrong Power Station, Adrian, Pa.; and R. Paul Smith Power Station, Williamsport, Md. In total, these retirements will bring 2,689 megawatts of dirty and dangerous coal pollution to an end. “Above all, this is a win for public health and for families who have been breathing polluted air from these outdated plants,” said Bruce Nilles, Senior Director of Sierra Club’s Beyond Coal campaign. “Today’s news is part of a national trend of clean energy replacing coal. The writing is on the wall for the coal industry. With the cost of coal rising and clean energy prices plummeting, coal’s market share is shrinking fast.” Closure of the six plants will prevent more than 174 premature deaths, 282 heart attacks, 2,677 asthma attacks, and 136 asthma emergency room visits, according to data from the Clean Air Task Force. Over the past few years, Sierra Club has been working with local citizens and groups including Environmental Integrity Project, Earthjustice, Environment Maryland, and Chesapeake Climate Action Network, in Maryland and Pennsylvania. In Ohio, the Sierra Club worked closely with Ohio Citizen Action, the Western Lake Erie Waterkeepers, and the Ohio Environmental Council to persuade First Energy to phase out its coal plants and to invest instead in clean energy sources like energy efficiency, wind and solar. The Natural Resources Defense Council led Ohio groups in legal strategy to force these plants to clean up dangerous mercury pollution. "I am proud that since 2008, the Sierra Club and our partner organizations have been actively organizing and challenging these coal plants, and working with other organizations to highlight the hazardous nature of coal-fired power plants," said Rashay Layman, Associate Organizing Representative with the Beyond Coal Campaign in Ohio. A report released this week by the U.S. Energy Information Administration highlighted a predicted drop in coal’s market share, from 44 to 39 percent, between 2010 and 2035. The EIA reports traditionally underestimate coal's decline, and the First Energy decision seems to suggest an even steeper drop for coal power in the United States. The EIA report also predicted that no new coal plants would be constructed in this period, aside from those already under construction. http://sc.org/w9SrLV<http://action.sierraclub.org/site/R?i=1m3qe9MqquPI_Q8WGVCxWg> . Ohio is already seeing the clean energy industry take hold. Earlier this week, the stateapproved plans<http://action.sierraclub.org/site/R?i=w8Vt5FfL_E_65IiCg6V1RA> for a 91-turbine wind farm that will bring up to $61 million dollars into the region. “We want to encourage First Energy to make use of the abundant clean energy potential throughout its territory. The company can create good clean energy jobs that won’t harm public health,” said Sierra Club Ohio volunteer Dave Simons. “This victory is the first of many to come in our fight to move beyond coal and fossil fuels and into a clean energy future. The next step for First Energy is to retire their dirty West Virginia plants, Albright and Willow Island.” The Sierra Club’s Beyond Coal campaign works in partnership with Bloomberg Philanthropies and a nationwide coalition of allies to retire one-third of the nation's aging coal plants by 2020, replacing them with clean energy like wind and solar by 2030. "This is a great development for the Beyond Coal Campaign," said Mayor Michael Bloomberg. “We are clearly witnessing the end of our dependency on coal and the move toward a cleaner energy future. As importantly, we are helping to provide cleaner water and cleaner air to communities and our citizens across the nation." Coal plants are the largest sources of climate disruption and toxic air pollution like mercury, soot and carbon pollution. These six plants bring the tally of coal plant retirements to 93 since the Sierra Club began its Beyond Coal campaign in 2002. ### *[image: Sierra Club]Sierra Club *85 2nd St. San Francisco, CA 94105 sierra.news(a)sierraclub.org www.sierraclub.org/pressroom<http://action.sierraclub.org/site/R?i=jGlbKE1xSaO1PVBAYS4KBA> Update My Profile<http://action.sierraclub.org/site/R?i=P151fjR_lgl_1MmZbqc6Tw> | Unsubscribe<http://action.sierraclub.org/site/R?i=kTxYekmafh4NZlvS9T7pBg> | Manage My Email Preferences<http://action.sierraclub.org/site/CO?i=0VpOsI8gS-7c5b6Nd_R5RLObiZ0OeYrT&cid…> *Connect with the Sierra Club:* Like us on Facebook<http://action.sierraclub.org/site/R?i=EJcJKTsPs9tw8WqZQUjFhw>Follow us on Twitter <http://action.sierraclub.org/site/R?i=o5nlBHxkhNZ0LVEcBRHwTQ>Sign up for the Insider<http://action.sierraclub.org/site/R?i=DCzVX8fbYfIpgvcWyuADLw>Join Our Activist Network<http://action.sierraclub.org/site/R?i=2dM2gcw7d7av2ibCtgyHsA> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - To unsubscribe from the COAL-CAMPAIGN-ALERTS list, send any message to: COAL-CAMPAIGN-ALERTS-signoff-request(a)LISTS.SIERRACLUB.ORG Check out our Listserv Lists support site for more information: http://www.sierraclub.org/lists/faq.asp To view the Sierra Club List Terms & Conditions, see: http://www.sierraclub.org/lists/terms.asp -- Paul Wilson Sierra Club 504 Jefferson Ave Charles Town, WV 25414-1130 Phone: 304-725-4360 Cell: 304-279-1361 "There is no forward until you have gone back" ~Buddha "In all things of nature there is something of the marvelous" ~ Aristotle

2 1

Energy Guerrilla Theater
by Jim Sconyers 26 Jan '12

26 Jan '12

Energy Guerrilla Theater - anyone want to try it? Here's an idea for referees. We do some guerrilla theater. 3 people in ref shirts w whistles and red penalty flags. Show up at McKinley's (or Rahall's or Capito's) local office. Meet outside w media if any come - we have data on their contributions from dirty energy. Then enter the office - then a little theater. "We're here to call a foul on McKinley - is he here?" "No.' Lot of whistle blowing, throwing red penalty flags,.... Then each ref announces a penalty like "Foul! For not promoting clean energy for America!!" with a placard with the charge printed for camera and to leave for McK. Finish, give office person the charges, exit w more whistles and hoopla. Key - get the whole thing on video and immediately get it onto YouTube and on to FB, other websites. Huge fun, and good targeting.... I have 3 ref shirts, a few red flags (any piece of red fabric is OK), left over from DC yesterday. What do you think? We need 2 more vols for refs, and 1 or 2 capable video folks to capture it. Timing could be the Friday before the Super Bowl. This will be good fun - and all legal!Can you be part of it? Be a ref for the environment! Let me know....! -- Jim Sconyers jimscon(a)gmail.com 304.698.9628 Remember, Mother Nature bats last.

1 0

Fwd: Morgantown Clean Air Cities resolution
by James Kotcon 23 Jan '12

23 Jan '12

Is this an issue that Morgantown folks would like to get involved with? It is now almost 5 years since Morgantown adopted the Cool cities resolution, so it might be time for the next steps. Whaddya tink? Jim Kotcon >>> "Chris Haddox" <Chris.Haddox(a)mail.wvu.edu> 1/23/2012 3:26 PM >>> Hi MMGT folks, I just got word from the Clean Air Cities person that contacted me saying that Council is going to discuss the attached resolution at it's Feb 7 meeting. Thoughts? Chris J. Chris Haddox, LEED AP, Visiting Assistant Professor, Sustainable Design Division of Design & Merchandising West Virginia University 704M Allen Hall Box 6124 Morgantown, WV 26505 E-Mail: chris.haddox(a)mail.wvu.edu Phone: (304) 293-3657 Program Website: http://www.design.wvu.edu >>> "Sarah Sawtelle" <ssawtelle(a)endangeredearth.org> 1/18/2012 5:44 PM >>> Dear Mr. Haddox, I am writing to you with hopes that the Morgantown Green Team will encourage the city of Morgantown to join the Center for Biological Diversitys Clean Air Cities campaign by passing a resolution in support of the Clean Air Act. Could you please pass this message on to the rest of the Green Team, and consider proposing this resolution to your city council? As you know, if we want clean air and a healthy climate, we have to cut greenhouse gas pollution. The Clean Air Act is our current best hope of reaching this goal, but the Act and the Environmental Protection Agency are under significant attack from the fossil fuel industry and its allies in Congress. Cities and counties across the country can be a powerful voice for fighting back against polluters and prompting much-needed action in Washington. That's why the Center for Biological Diversitys Climate Law Institute has launched Clean Air Cities, a nationwide campaign urging cities and counties around the United States to pass a resolution that calls on the Obama administration and the EPA to use the Clean Air Act to make significant reductions in greenhouse gas pollution. Boone, NC, Pittsburgh, PA and Seattle, WA are among the cities that have already signed on. Morgantown's commitment to sustainability suggests it would be a great candidate to be to be the first city in West Virginia to be a Clean Air city. I have attached a sample city resolution that you can look over and edit as needed. Please let me know if you are interested in bringing this resolution to your council, or if you have any questions about the campaign. Our webpage, CleanAirCities.org, also provides important background information. Please respond to Rose Braz, the Centers Climate Campaign director, who is coordinating this effort and can be reached by email, rbraz(a)biologicaldiversity.org, or phone: (415) 436-9682 x 319. Thank you so much for your time and concern for our climate! Sincerely, Sarah Sawtelle The Center for Biological Diversity -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "MorgantownGreenTeam" group. To post to this group, send email to morgantowngreenteam(a)googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to morgantowngreenteam+unsubscribe(a)googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/morgantowngreenteam?hl=en.

1 0

Fwd: question about wind
by Paul Wilson 21 Jan '12

21 Jan '12

seems to me I once saw some data on winds in the appalachians, but I am having CRS at the moment. If you can help Clayton, please email him directly. thx, paul ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Clayton Daughenbaugh <claytonhd(a)xmission.com> Date: Fri, Jan 20, 2012 at 10:02 AM Subject: question about wind To: CONS-AWL-RESILIENT-HABITATS(a)lists.sierraclub.org Anyone out there know of any research about whether there has been an increase in wind across the country in recent years and, if so, possible causes.**** ** ** The ex of one of my wife’s friends is a cross-country truck driver. Apparently in his circles there is a belief that wind speeds have increased in recent years and there is a dialogue going on speculating as to whether it is caused by all the new “wind-mills” or climate change. I’ve been asked if I know anything about this and I don’t.**** ** ** I would say anecdotally, and as a person who travels the highways a lot that I tend to agree recent years have been a bit windier.**** ** ** --clayton**** - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - To unsubscribe from the CONS-AWL-RESILIENT-HABITATS list, send any message to: CONS-AWL-RESILIENT-HABITATS-signoff-request(a)LISTS.SIERRACLUB.ORG Check out our Listserv Lists support site for more information: http://www.sierraclub.org/lists/faq.asp To view the Sierra Club List Terms & Conditions, see: http://www.sierraclub.org/lists/terms.asp -- Paul Wilson Sierra Club 504 Jefferson Ave Charles Town, WV 25414-1130 Phone: 304-725-4360 Cell: 304-279-1361 "There is no forward until you have gone back" ~Buddha "In all things of nature there is something of the marvelous" ~ Aristotle

3 2

Fwd: Groups Secure Another Key Victory in Fight to Stop Pollution from Coal Mines
by Paul Wilson 19 Jan '12

19 Jan '12

fyi, paul ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Verena Owen <verena_owen(a)prodigy.net> Date: Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 3:09 PM Subject: Groups Secure Another Key Victory in Fight to Stop Pollution from Coal Mines To: COAL-CAMPAIGN-ALERTS(a)lists.sierraclub.org *For Immediate Release **January 18, 2012*** *Contact: *Sean Sarah, Sierra Club, 202-548-4589 sean.sarah(a)sierraclub.org Jim Sconyers, Sierra Club, 304-698-9628, jimscon(a)gmail.com Cindy Rank, West Virginia Highlands Conservancy, 304-924-5802, clrank2(a)gmail.com Dianne Bady, OVEC, 304-360-2072, dbady.ovec(a)gmail.com Joe Lovett, Appalachian Mountain Advocates, 304-645-9006, jlovett(a)appalmad.org Derek Teaney, Appalachian Mountain Advocates, 304-793-9007, dteaney(a)appalmad.org *Groups Secure Another Key Victory in Fight to Stop Pollution from Coal Mines **Settlement Requires Patriot Coal to Install Treatment Facilities and Pay Penalties* * * *Charleston**, **WV** – *Today, a coalition of conservation and environmental groups completed a legal settlement with Patriot Coal Corporation over high levels of selenium output at several of the company’s West Virginia coal mines. The settlement requires that the coal mining company and its subsidiaries treat selenium pollution at 43 outlets, including outlets previously thought to be untreatable. In a 2010 order resolving a separate action brought by the groups against Patriot, a federal judge ordered the company to treat selenium at four outlets. The company has estimated the cost of treatment at just those four outlets to be nearly $100 million. The suit resolved by today’s settlement was brought by the Sierra Club, West Virginia Highlands Conservancy, and the Ohio Valley Environmental Coalition. “Several years ago, the coal industry said that there was no way to treat selenium pollution from their mines,” said Jim Sconyers, Chair of the West Virginia Chapter of the Sierra Club. “But now they’re agreeing to treat that pollution. This settlement, and other recent actions against Arch Coal and Alpha Natural Resources, shows that mining companies can do far more than they admit to clean up their pollution. Water is life. Keep it clean.” The settlement requires Patriot to install treatment technology on a set schedule to bring selenium discharges within acceptable levels. In addition, the company will pay penalties of $7.5 million, with the vast majority of those funds directed to the West Virginia Land Trust. Patriot will be subject to significant additional penalties for any violations that occur after the compliance date for each source of pollution. The company has also agreed to abandon its permits for the 8.5 million ton Callisto Surface Mine in Boone County. “West Virginia coal mines are finally starting to address their legacy of selenium pollution,” said Dianne Bady with the Ohio Valley Environmental Coalition. “Mine operators and regulators in Kentucky, Tennessee, and Virginia need to follow suit.” “Although treatment may be sufficient to address these existing selenium problems, ultimately the industry and regulators need to recognize that it’s not appropriate to mine coal where disturbing selenium laden rock strata will release harmful amounts of pollution,” said Cindy Rank with the West Virginia Highlands Conservancy.** Selenium, a toxic element that causes reproductive failure and deformities in fish and other forms of aquatic life, is discharged from many surface coal-mining operations across Appalachia. At very high levels, selenium can pose a threat to human health, causing hair and fingernail loss, kidney and liver damage, and damage to the nervous and circulatory systems. The settlement was lodged with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia. The U.S. government will have an opportunity to review the settlement before its terms take effect. *The coalition was represented by Joe Lovett and Derek Teaney with the Appalachian Mountain Advocates. For more information on selenium visit * www.sierraclub.org/seleniumfacts**** *###* - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - To unsubscribe from the COAL-CAMPAIGN-ALERTS list, send any message to: COAL-CAMPAIGN-ALERTS-signoff-request(a)LISTS.SIERRACLUB.ORG Check out our Listserv Lists support site for more information: http://www.sierraclub.org/lists/faq.asp -- Paul Wilson Sierra Club 504 Jefferson Ave Charles Town, WV 25414-1130 Phone: 304-725-4360 Cell: 304-279-1361 "There is no forward until you have gone back" ~Buddha "In all things of nature there is something of the marvelous" ~ Aristotle

1 0

SLATE.COM ARTICLE ON MARCELLUS
by William V. DePaulo, Esq. 19 Jan '12

19 Jan '12

What the Frack? Is there really 100 years’ worth of natural gas beneath the United States? By Chris Nelder <http://www.slate.com/authors.chris_nelder.html>|Posted Thursday, Dec. 29, 2011, at 6:37 AM ET [image: Shale gas.] A shale-gas drilling rig Christopher Furlong/Getty Images. The recent press about the potential of shale gas would have you believe that America is now sitting on a 100-year supply of natural gas. It's a " game-changer<http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303491304575187880596301668.h…>." A "golden age of gas<http://www.iea.org/weo/docs/weo2011/WEO2011_GoldenAgeofGasReport.pdf>" awaits, one in which the United States will be energy independent, even exporting gas to the rest of the world, upending our current energy-importing situation. The data, however, tell a very different story. Between the demonstrable gas reserves, and the potential resources blared in the headlines, lies an enormous gulf of uncertainty. The claim of a 100-year supply originated with a report released in April 2011 by the Potential Gas Committee, an organization of petroleum engineers and geoscientists. President and Chairman Larry Gring works with Third Day Energy LLC, a company based in Austin, Texas, that is engaged in acquiring and exploiting oil and gas properties along the Texas Gulf Coast.*<http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/future_tense/2011/12/is_th…>Chairman of the Board Darrell Pierce is a vice president of DCP Midstream LLC, a natural-gas production, processing, and marketing company based in Denver. The report's contributors are from the industry-supported Colorado School of Mines. In short, the Potential Gas Committee report is not an impartial assessment of resources. Advertisement Its website <http://www.potentialgas.org/>consists of a single press release announcing the April report, with a link to a brief summary slide deck. A more detailed slide deck<http://www.narucmeetings.org/Presentations/PGC%20NARUC%20Committee%20on%20G…>issued by the committee presents some optimistic estimates of potential resources, including a "future gas supply" estimate of 2,170 trillion cubic feet (tcf). At the 2010 rate of American consumption—about 24 tcf per year—that would be a 95-year supply of gas, which apparently has been rounded up to 100 years. But what is that estimate based upon? Those details haven’t been made freely available to the public, but their summary breaks it down as follows here and in the graph below: 273 tcf are "proved reserves," meaning that it is believed to exist, and to be commercially producible at a 10 percent discount rate. That conforms with the data of the U.S. Energy Information Administration <http://www.eia.gov/dnav/ng/ng_enr_dry_a_EPG0_r11_bcf_a.htm>. An additional 536.6 tcf are classified as "probable" from existing fields, meaning that they have some expectation that the gas exists in known formations, but it has not been proven to exist and is not certain to be technically recoverable. An additional 687.7 tcf is "possible" from new fields, meaning that the gas might exist in new fields that have not yet been discovered. A further 518.3 tcf are "speculative," which means exactly that. A final 176 tcf are claimed for coalbed gas, which is gas trapped in coal formations. (Note: The PGC reports the total for probable, possible, and speculative coalbed gas as 158.6 tcf, but adding up their numbers for each category, we find the correct total is 157.7 tcf. We haven't been able to reach the PGC to discuss the discrepancy. Adding the 18.6 tcf of proved coalbed gas reserves reported by the EIA in 2009—the most recent data it offers—to the 157.7 gives a total of 176.3 tcf for all categories of coalbed gas. [image: 111221_FUTURE_futureGasSupply] By the same logic, you can claim to be a multibillionaire, including all your "probable, possible, and speculative resources." Assuming that the United States continues to use about 24 tcf per annum, then, only an 11-year supply of natural gas is certain. The other 89 years' worth has not yet been shown to exist or to be recoverable. Even that comparably modest estimate of 11 years’ supply may be optimistic. Those 273 tcf are located in reserves that are undrilled, but are adjacent to drilled tracts where gas has been produced. Due to large lateral differences in the geology of shale plays, production can vary considerably from adjacent wells. The EIA uses a different methodology to arrive at its resource calculations, offering a range of estimates. In the most optimistic, "high shale resource case," it estimates there are 1,230 tcf in the “estimated unproved technically recoverable resource base.” It also offers several production forecasts through 2035, ranging from 827 tcf in their Reference case, to 423 tcf in their Low case—one-fourth the headline number. In the Low case, which certainly could be correct, the EIA says the United States could once again become a net natural-gas *importer* by 2035. [image: 111227_FUTURE_howLongWillItLast2] One complicating factor here is recoverability, because we are never able to extract all of an oil or gas resource. For oil, a 35 percent recovery factor is considered excellent. But recovery factors for shale gas are highly variable, due to the varied geology of the source rocks. Even if we assume a very optimistic 50 percent recovery factor for the 550 tcf of probable gas (536.6 tcf from shale gas plus 13.4 tcf from coalbed gas), that would still only amount to 225 tcf, or a 10-year supply. That plus the 11-year supply of proved reserves would last the United States just 21 years, at current rates of consumption. Natural-gas proponents aren't advocating current rates of consumption, however. They would like to see more than 2 million 18-wheelers converted to natural gas, in order to reduce our dependence on oil imports from unfriendly countries. They also advocate switching a substantial part of our power generation from coal to gas, in order to reduce carbon emissions. Were we to do those things, that 21-year supply could quickly shrink to a 10-year supply, yet those same advocates never adjust their years of supply estimates accordingly. The truly devilish details of supply forecasts, however, rest in the production models of shale-gas operators. Arthur Berman <http://petroleumtruthreport.blogspot.com/>, a Houston-based petroleum geologist and energy sector consultant, along with petroleum engineer Lynn Pittinger, has long been skeptical of the claims about shale gas. Their detailed, independent work on the economics of shale-gas production <http://www.theoildrum.com/node/8212> suggests that not only are the reserves claims overstated, but that the productivity of the wells is, too. The problems begin with the historical production data, which is limited. The Barnett Shale in Texas is the only shale formation, or "play," with a significant history. The first vertical well was drilled in 1982, but it wasn't until the advent of horizontal drilling in 2003 that production really took off. By horizontally drilling and then "fracking" the rock with a pressurized slurry of water, chemicals, and "proppants" (particulates that hold open the fractures), operators kicked off the shale-gas revolution. Drilling exploded in the Barnett from about 3,000 wells in 2003 to more than 9,000 today. Thus we have a reasonably good data set for the Barnett. Data from the Fayetteville Shale in Arkansas are also reasonably substantial, dating back to 2004 and including roughly 4,000 wells. The data on the Haynesville Shale in Louisiana are minimal, dating to late 2007 and including fewer than 2,000 wells. The historical data for the rest of the major shale-gas plays—the Marcellus, Eagle Ford, Bakken, and Woodford—along with a handful of other smaller plays, are too recent and sparse to permit accurate modeling of their production profiles. After mathematically modeling the actual production of thousands of wells in the Barnett, Fayetteville, and Haynesville Shales, Berman found that operators had significantly exaggerated their claims. Reserves appear to be overstated by more than 100 percent Typically, the core 10 to 15 percent of a shale formation’s gas is commercially viable. The rest may or may not be—we don’t know at this point. Yet the industry has calculated the potentially recoverable gas as if 100 percent of the plays were equally productive. The claimed lifetime productivity, or estimated ultimate recovery, of individual wells was also overstated, Berman found. The production decline curves modeled by well operators predict that production will fall steeply at first, followed by a long, flattened tail of production. Berman's analysis found a better fit with a model in which production falls steeply for the first 10 to 15 months, followed by an more weakly hyperbolic decline. Shale-gas wells typically pay out over one-half their total lifetime production in the first year. So operators must keep drilling continuously to maintain a flat rate of overall production. [image: 111221_FUTURE_bermanLogic] Berman concludes that the average lifetime of a Barnett well might be as little as 12 years, instead of the 50 years claimed by operators, and the estimated ultimate recovery from individual wells might be one-half what is claimed. We will only know which models are correct after another five to 10 years for the Barnett, and more than a decade for the newer plays. Other issues Berman identified include artificially inflating the average well productivity numbers by dropping played-out wells from their calculations; improperly including production data from restimulated wells as if it owed to the initial well completions; and intermixing data from older and newer wells without aligning the data by vintage, giving the impression of significantly higher-than-actual production overall. Multiplying the error, operators seem to have applied their overly optimistic models of these older shale plays to newer plays, which may have radically different geological characteristics and might not be nearly as productive. For example, the lifetime output of Barnett wells may never be matched by wells in the Marcellus. The EIA makes reference to all of these issues in its assessment of the prospects for shale gas<http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/IF_all.cfm#prospectshale>, noting that “there is a high degree of uncertainty around the projection, starting with the estimated size of the technically recoverable shale gas resource,” and that “the estimates embody many assumptions that might prove to be untrue in the long term.” Yet none of these issues are properly accounted for in the official financial statements of the operators. [image: 111222_FUTURE_recoveryMap] An example of how inflated initial resource claims can be, and how they can be sharply cut, presented itself in August with a new assessment of the Marcellus shale<http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/article.asp?ID=2893&from=rss_home>by the U.S. Geological Survey. It offered a range of estimates, from 43 tcf at 95 percent probability, to 84 tcf at 50 percent probability, to 114 tcf at 5 percent probability. (Not surprisingly, the 95 percent probable estimates have proven historically to be closest to the mark.) Only five months earlier, the EIA speculated in its *Annual Energy Outlook 2011<http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/pdf/0383%282011%29.pdf> * that the Marcellus might have an "estimated technically recoverable resource base of about 400 trillion cubic feet." The USGS reassessment had slashed the estimate for the Marcellus by 80 percent. Similar adjustments may be ahead for other shale plays. In addition to the uncertainty about shale gas resources and productivity, there are other lingering questions. For one thing, on an averaged annual basis, shale gas has been unprofitable since 2008. Wildcatters—those who explore and sink the first wells in a new location—have been taking on a great deal of debt and risk to discover the plays and produce them at a loss, in hopes that larger, well-funded players will buy them out later. It’s not clear that this gamble will ever pay off. The other major concern, of course, is about environmental contamination from fracking operations. It seems to me that the vast majority of shale-gas operations are as environmentally benign as the rest of the oil and gas industry's operations, although some bad actors have, through negligence or outright irresponsibility, caused actual contamination. For now, though, the jury is out on the overall safety of shale gas production. I am not anti-gas; neither is Berman. What concerns him, and me, are the overblown claims about the potential for shale gas and the poor quality of both technical and financial information about its production. We don't yet know how much of the estimated gas resources will be economically recoverable or whether the projected production rates for some wells might be off by a factor of 10. We might have a 100-year supply of gas, or we might have an 11-year supply. We might realize economic and environmental benefits by transitioning trucking and coal-fired power generation to natural gas, or we might do so only to find ourselves out on a limb far more economically dangerous than the current peak and impending decline of world oil supply. We simply don't know, and we may not know for years to come. *This article arises from Future Tense, a collaboration among Arizona State University, the New America Foundation, and Slate. Future Tense explores the ways emerging technologies affect society, policy, and culture. To read more, visit the Future Tense blog<http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense.html>and the Future Tense home page <http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense.html>. You can also follow us on Twitter <http://www.twitter.com/FutureTenseNow>.* *Correction, Jan. 3, 2012: This article originally misstated the name of Larry Gring’s energy company. It is Third Day Energy LLC, not Third Way Energy LLC. (Return<http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/future_tense/2011/12/is_th…>to the corrected sentence.) * -- 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

What traits make the best environmental citizens?
by James Kotcon 13 Jan '12

13 Jan '12

This just came from my Michigan State University Alumni newsletter. JBK What traits make the best environmental citizens? EAST LANSING, Mich. — Patient, persistent and confident people are among those who make the best environmental citizens, according to two Michigan State University researchers who have pinpointed character traits of good problem solvers and deliberators. “In situations where people are talking about very tough issues, such as climate change and sustainability, there are certain virtues people have that help those deliberations go better,” said Kyle Whyte, assistant professor of philosophy. “The public will have to increasingly deal with such issues so it’s important the educational system is preparing people to participate well with those who have different views.” But that’s not a focus of most environmental education programs, found Whyte and co-researcher Matt Ferkany, visiting assistant professor of teacher education. Their study was published in the journal Philosophy of Education. While the researchers said their list of traits isn’t complete, the most successful deliberators possess virtues that make people feel included and engaged, while producing results. The top 14 traits: wit, friendliness, empathy, courage, temperance, sincerity, humility, self-confidence, persistence, attentiveness, dependability, fairness, generosity and patience. “These virtues are based on the nature of the problems we face – problems that are collaborative in nature and for which there is widespread disagreement about solutions,” Ferkany said. Take self-confidence. In many conversations, people don’t value their own contributions and worry others won’t respect their ideas, Ferkany said. But a good deliberator believes, without arrogance, that his or her contributions can advance the discussion. Or take friendliness. Congenial people are open to differing opinions. And temperate people can shut down an argument gone wrong without losing their cool. Teachers and schools can provide opportunities for exercising such virtues, Ferkany said. For example, if a school touts the importance of sustainability, it could include students in the planning of organic menus. To promote self-confidence, schools should make all students feel important by offering activities appealing to many interests. Another way: experiential education, in which students gain experience through actual dialog. This fall, Whyte participated in a Sustainable Michigan Endowed Project grant led by Dale Rozeboom, professor of animal science. The project brought together students from animal science and MSU’s Student Organic Farm to discuss “ethical farming and food practices.” At the end of the semester, after all students visited both the MSU swine farm and the organic farm, they met to discuss sustainable pork production. They came from different worlds – those training to run conventional agriculture businesses and those training to become organic farmers – but concluded that everyone wanted to produce a good product and earn a living, while protecting the health of the pig and the environment. “Because the problems are so complex,” Whyte said, “citizens need deliberative and collaborative skills to deal with environmental and agriculture matters.” Published: Jan. 10, 2012 Kyle Powys Whyte, assistant professor of philosophy. Photo by G.L. Kohuth Matt Ferkany, visiting assistant professor of teacher education. Photo by G.L. Kohuth Students from MSU's Student Organic Farm deliberate with Kyle Powys Whyte about pig welfare after visiting the swine farm. ###

1 0

Dominion Post on Albright meeting
by James Kotcon 13 Jan '12

13 Jan '12

DOMINION POST page 9A Friday 13 January 2012: Meeting set to discuss power plant’s fate Albright facility has three years to meet new EPA regulations BY MICHELLE WOLFORD The Dominion Post KINGWOOD — The West Virginia Sierra Club will sponsor a forum on the future of the Albright Power Plant at 1 p.m. Saturday at the Albright Fire Hall. First Energy, which owns the plant, will not attend. The forum is to discuss what changes may occur at the plant under new Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulations, and their possible impact on plant employees and the community. Mark Durbin, a First Energy spokesman, said the company hasn’t made any decisions about the plant. “Once we have an announcement, we’ll make an announcement,” he said. Employees will get the information first. Durbin said changes in EPA regulations would require expensive changes at coal-fired power plants, such as the Albright plant. The company will have to decide the fate of about 20 such plants, he said — whether they’ll be retrofitted with the necessary emission controls, retired or repowered for natural gas generation. Companies will have at least three years to make the changes, which are being implemented “to reduce mercury and other toxic air pollution from coal and oil-fired power plants,” according to the EPA. Delegates Larry Williams and Stan Shaver, both D-Preston, plan to attend, Williams said. County Commissioners Craig Jennings, Vicki Cole and Dave Price will be on hand. Roberta Baylor, executive director of the Preston County Economic Development Authority, confirmed Thursday that she plans to attend. Jim Sconyers, of the Sierra Club, said First Energy, which owns the power plant, “will not be sending a representative.” “Everyone in Albright knows that the Albright Station power plant is old,” the Sierra Club said in forum information. “Built in 1952, it lacks modern pollution control equipment. Change is in the air for the Albright plant. But no one knows what those changes will be, how soon, or how they will affect the community. And no one seems to be planning for those changes. Other communities facing these changes have won new investment and new jobs, but this requires planning and everyone working together.”

1 0

research, bat deaths at turbines
by Frank Young 13 Jan '12

13 Jan '12

http://www.edie.net/news/news_story.asp?id=21648 Researchers have developed what they claim is a new way to reduce the amount of bats killed by flying into wind turbines. According to a team from the USDA Forest Service's Pacific Southwest Research Station (PSW) in the United States deaths of migratory bats at wind energy plants have become a 'frequent occurrence'. Bat migration patterns are poorly understood and the relationship between deaths at wind energy sites and migratory behaviour are still being studied, says PSW ecologist Ted Weller. Mr Weller argues that previous research has already shown adjusting the operations of turbines can reduce the number of bats killed by wind turbines but, this strategy has not yet been widely implemented. The online tool takes into account bat activity at different times of the year and a number of environmental conditions, such as wind direction and speed, air temperature, and moon phase. Mr Weller and his research team used devices which detected the bats' echolocation calls, then linked the presence of bats to the weather conditions measured on-site on a given night. Researchers found echolocation detectors placed at 22 meters and 52 meters above ground were more effective at characterizing migratory bat activity then those located closer to the ground. Moreover, multiple echolocation detectors were required to accurately characterize bat activity at the facility. They then built models to predict the presence of bats based on date and weather variables. Mr Weller said: "Increasing the wind speed at which turbines begin to spin and produce energy to the grid has proven to be an effective way to reduce bat fatalities. "However, bat activity levels depend on more than just wind speed, our work demonstrates the use of a decision-making tool that could protect bats when fatality risk is highest while maximizing energy production on nights with a low chance of fatalities."

1 0

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

EC January 2012