EC

ec@lists.wvsierraclub.org

2254 discussions

Re: [EC] In Beckley paper: Money to Sierra Club prompts boos
by James Kotcon 25 Jul '11

25 Jul '11

I think we need to attack the short-sighted leaders who think of coal first, and deny the reality of global warming, especially during this year of unprecedented weather. Manchin ran his campaign by literally shooting at the Cap-And-Trade bill, which would have included the subsidies for Clean Coal and the economic incentives needed for CCS. West Virginia's political leaders do not have any plans for developing a transition to a post-coal future, and are therefore blind to the possibilities and are locking us into ever-increasing dependence on an industry doomed to run out, and sooner than they imagine. Projections show a 40 % decline ion coal produciton in WV within 5 years, yet they continue to talk as if coal is the future of West Virginia's economic development. I believe we need to respond soon. It will expose us to a lot of attacks, but it will also position us as credible leaders on the issues. I think we need a press release, or even a press conference by Monday. Whaddya Tink? JBK >>> Jim Sconyers 07/23/11 8:43 AM >>> Translation: "Coal now, coal forever! And to hell with the consequences!" On Sat, Jul 23, 2011 at 8:29 AM, Vivian Stockman <vivian(a)ohvec.org> wrote: July 22, 2011 Money to Sierra Club prompts boos By Mannix Porterfield Register-Herald Reporter http://www.register-herald.com/local/x202401951/Money-to-Sierra-Club-prompt… An industry leader joined a union chief and political luminaries in West Virginia in a sustained chorus of boos directed Thursday at billionaire New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s hefty gift to an environmental group bent on wiping out the coal industry. Bloomberg disclosed he handed a $50 million donation to the Sierra Club from his own pocket for use in the group’s quest to shut down coal mining the two consider an environmental hazard. His action triggered a swift and predictable response in coal-rich West Virginia. “The next time the lights go out, the people in New York City will all know exactly whom to blame * their mayor, Michael Bloomberg,” Rep. Nick Rahall, D-W.Va., said from his Capitol office. Bloomberg said his gift would enable the Sierra Club to close as many as one-third of America’s oldest coal-fired power plants by 2020. Acting Gov. Earl Ray Tomblin weighed in on the latest controversy involving the industry, calling coal “the most stable, cost-effective means of meeting the energy demands of our country and the world.” “With the use of our natural resources here in West Virginia, our country becomes more energy-independent,” Tomblin said. Tomblin helped break ground on the new Willow Island hydro-electric project near Saint Marys. “The fact, however, that we are looking for other sources of energy * and developing clean coal technologies * does not mean that our country can afford to no longer use coal,” the governor said. “Coal must be a part of any realistic solution to meet our growing demand for energy.” Given the size of the charitable gift that could be spent on hiring lawyers to challenge coal production and power plants alike, Bill Raney, president of the West Virginia Coal Association, said the industry must view Bloomberg’s threat seriously. “It sends a terrible message to coal miners and families that depend on coal, not only in West Virginia but across this country,” Raney said. “It has provided energy to make steel and power throughout the history of this country. Now, all of a sudden, he’s made a lot of money doing something, and he wants to put it into something that sounds pretty shallow, pretty selfish.” Raney noted the mercury hovered at 100 degrees in both New York and Washington, D.C., and was 97 in Charleston, and questioned how Bloomberg would act if the electricity suddenly stop-ped with a lack of coal. “Let’s assume he takes all the coal generation off the grid,” he said. “If he accomplishes quickly what he wants to do, I’m wondering what he’s going to do?” The industry has been in a roiling feud with the Obama administration over its Environmental Protection Agency’s approach to mining permits, and Raney said coal operators must brace themselves for a well-heeled assault by the Sierra Club in a bid to stop coal plants and force others to retreat from remodeling plans. “They’ll just be flinging grenades, is what I think,” he said. “It’s simply not fair to the people who have made a living trying to provide energy in this country. It’s just like he thumbed his nose at it. It doesn’t make a lick of sense.” Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., found it disappointing that Bloomberg launched an attack on coal, rather than work to achieve a balance between production and environmental concerns. “Coal not only built this country, but it built the skyscrapers of New York City, and, without coal, the lights of that city would be dark and its economy would be devastated,” the senator said. “I have said from day one, and will say until my last breath, that there has to be a balance in our country between the environment as well as our economic and national security, which are threatened by this country’s addiction to foreign oil.” Sen. Richard Browning, D-Wyoming, pointed to a time when the lights indeed went out in the Big Apple, in a major blackout that crippled much of the eastern seaboard. And with one of the worst heat waves to ever paralyze much of that region now in sway, Browning said coal takes on an even more critical role in supplying the energy to keep the air conditioners humming. “Can you imagine what it would be like today without electricity right now, as far as air conditioners go?” If coal weren’t being burn-ed to supply energy needs, he said, those swept up in the heat would be at nature’s mercy without benefit of relief. “That’s not the kind of leadership that I would want to set for the people I represent, to advocate something that’s going to be detrimental to their way of life,” Browning said. Browning said he considers himself both an environmentalist and a realist. “In today’s life, we need to make electricity, and the only feasible way to do that at this point is with coal,” the senator said. “There will come a day we can do better with coal. We’re all trying to achieve that today.” Browning pointed to research in progress in both Pittsburgh and West Virginia University aimed at cleaning up the use of coal. “We all want to have cleaner coal, and we’re getting there,” he said. “In the meantime, we can’t stop using it until we get an alternative.” The Sierra Club says it has applied the brakes to more than 150 new coal-fired power plants in recent years through the use of the courts and local action. “If we are going to get serious about reducing our carbon footprint in the United States, we have to get serious about coal,” Bloomberg said in making his announcement. “Coal is a self-inflicted public health risk, polluting the air we breathe, adding mercury to our water and the leading cause of climate disruption.” Republican gubernatorial nominee Bill Maloney vowed to take on Bloomberg, the Sierra Club, President Obama “and anybody else who attacks one of the pillars of our state’s economy.” “I’m convinced that when you get elected to office, there must be some magic potion they feed you that causes you to become completely detached from reality and lose touch with regular people,” he said of Bloomberg. “This is just another example of career politicians with half-baked ideas that would devastate our economy.” United Mine Workers President Cecil Roberts likewise decried Bloomberg’s gift, saying that it would throw miners out of work and plunge them deeper into the throes of a recession. In some parts of Appala-chia, the union executive said, mining jobs provide the only decent incomes that allow workers to sustain a solid, middle-class lifestyle. Moreover, he suggested, there is a measure of hypo-crisy to the environmental cause trumpeted by groups such as the Sierra Club. “I suspect that many of their members and supporters spend thousands of dollars every year on automobiles, computers, smart phones and other goods made in China, India and other countries, which are rapidly building economies more robust than ours by using more and more coal as their chief source of energy,” he said. “I would also point out that China is swiftly becoming the world’s leader in developing carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology, which will meet the goal of reducing and eventually eliminating greenhouse gas emissions when commercially applied to coal-fired power plants.” Delegate Randy Swartz-miller, D-Hancock, suggested Bloomberg not try to run for office in West Virginia because his vote total would be scant. “That is, if he didn’t get run out of the state first,” Swartzmiller said. “Just have to wonder if someone that rich is smart enough to know what truly powers that little switch that makes the lights come on.” * E-mail: mannix(a)register-herald.com -- Jim Sconyers jimscon(a)gmail.com 304.698.9628 Remember, Mother Nature bats last.

6 5

Re: [EC] Delegates Schedule Public Hearings on Gas Drilling
by James Kotcon 23 Jul '11

23 Jul '11

I suggested this to a Committee staffer last Thursday night, and he implied that just was not realistic. We will need more than one person saying it Monday nioght to have an impact. I think I will make the point that the landscape has changed since March. At the end of the regular session, the issue being debated was whether or not to regulate. Now, the issue is whether the regulate, or ban Marcelus fracking. And the momentum for a ban will increase if there is not comprehensive regulation imposed before more fracking gets done. Unless the Legislature gets serious about comprehensive rules, the controversy will continue to grow, as will demands for a permanent ban. A moratorium on new permits and a comprehensive bill imposing emergency rules on existing permits are the only way to demonstrate that the Legislature is serious and is proceeding in a logical manner to develop the industry responsibly. JBK >>> Jim Sconyers 07/22/11 11:57 PM >>> I agree - the more the delay, the more drilling gets done fast before regulation, and their mess becomes a fait accompli. On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 8:54 PM, John Garlow <ecomodjag(a)gmail.com> wrote: The problem with Earl Ray's emergency is that it really must not be an emergency since even if the DEP does come up with any meaningful regulation and enforcement system, and even if the house comes up with 2 million to pay for monitoring and inspections, it will take about a year to get "ramped up" according to DEP. So, the drilling and fracking will continue on for at least another year with the blessing of the state and the who knows what might happen to the environment attitude. This is similar to the days when anyone could dig a hole in their bank for coal that left us with lots of yellow boy streams and clean up costs. I want to keep pushing hard for a moratorium since the lack of control of this industry has already been called an emergency. Since this is a valuable national resource, it should be regulated in terms of how it is used. Companies should disclose their end consumer. Perhaps this should be coupled with conversion programs from gasoline to compressed gas vehicles. Why should we risk our environment so that a few people can make money selling our gas to China? I want to keep pushing the word "emergency" as used by the gov. He needs to take action and be a leader. He is already being attacked by Mahoney for lack of leadership saying something should have been done years ago. Is he going to stand up for WV's environment or bend to China's desire for our gas? John Garlow On Sat, Jul 16, 2011 at 12:03 PM, James Kotcon <jkotcon(a)wvu.edu> wrote: The WV4MoM discussed this last night, and we agree that it needs to have a good turnout, preferably at all three hearings. Chuck, can you start contacting folks in the Northern Panhandle and Clarksburg areas? The Upshur County group should also get out, as Clarksburg is pretty close. I have a call in to get more details as to the format, but this is a great opportunity, and we need to start preparing ASAP. I suspect that there will be an opportunity for a few invited speakers, but whether this will be an open opportunity for everyone to speak is not clear. Two key themes will be: 1) Follow the Money. If industry says they support "Responsible Regulation" does that mean they will withhold campaign contributions from legislators that block "Responsible Regulation"? I suspect that the Doug Facemire's of the Committee will change their tune pretty quickly if industry says they will, but I also suspect that "Responsible Regulation" will turn out to be code words for "Do Nothing". If we can demonstrate to the Legislature that the industry propaganda actually means "Continue poisoning the water", we may sway a few votes, in spite of the industry campaign contributions. And when the industry says they want decisions based on facts and not "emotionalism", we need to point out that it is the industry "experts" that have let their pursuit of profits blind them to real science, and their greed that creates the emotional disconnect with reality. 2) Discredit the claims that fracking is safe and has never contaminated ground water. I am putting together news accounts of well contamination, spills, and violations to demonstrate that the industry claims that they are clean do not match reality. For example, PA-DEP identified seven cases of gas migrating into ground water for every 1000 wells in 2010. They issued over 1000 citations for violations of environmental protection rules between 2008 and August 2010. But WV-DEP has only 15 inspectors for 59,000 wells, so drillers here know they are unlikely to ever get an inspection. It is certainly true that some wells can be drilled without problems, and that some companies are doing a better job than others. That is why we need real regulations, to rein in the rogue operators and put everyone on a level playing field. If we can couple this demonstration that real problems exist, that industry experts are distorting the facts, and that the industry is in denial, with an assertion that strong regulations mean we can have both gas drilling and clean water, we will win. JBK >>> "Chuck Wyrostok" <wyro(a)appalight.com> 7/16/2011 9:57 AM >>> FYI, folks.c Chuck Wyrostok Sierra Club Outreach Organizer Toll free 877 252 0257 E: outreach(a)marcellus-wv.com www.marcellus-wv.com _____ From: Julie Archer [mailto:julie@wvsoro.org] Sent: Saturday, July 16, 2011 9:31 AM To: undisclosed-recipients: Subject: WV-SORO Update: Delegates Schedule Public Hearings on Gas Drilling Delegates Schedule Public Hearings on Marcellus Drilling The House members of the legislature's Select <http://www.legis.state.wv.us/committees/interims/committee.cfm?abb=marcellu s> Committee on Marcellus Shale have announced they will hold three public hearings on drilling issues to get input on how problems and concerns related to natural gas drilling should be addressed. In media reports, Delegate Tim Manchin, House chairman of the committee said, "The committee members have heard much about both the potential benefits and problems associated with the Marcellus Shale development - what we are now looking for are suggestions on measures that should be included in a new state law that encourages efficient development of the resource while addresses local and environmental concerns." The hearings are set for Wheeling on July 21, Morgantown on July 25, and Clarksburg on July 27. The times and locations will be announced early next week. We'll send out more details once they become available. They will also be posted on the Legislature's website, www.legis.state.wv.us. The entire Select Committee met earlier this week, and heard presentations from a variety of experts and interest groups including WV-SORO. The full committee plans to reconvene and hold three working meetings during the August interim meetings of the legislature (August 1-3). Also this week, Senator President Earl Ray Tomblin, acting as Governor, signed an executive <http://www.governor.wv.gov/Documents/20110713150559476.pdf> order directing the Department of Environmental Protection to develop rules to regulate Marcellus Shale gas drilling. The plan is a positive first step, but is no substitute for legislative action which is needed to address the problems surface face in their dealings with the drillers. You can read Tomblin's press release and the executive order here <http://www.governor.wv.gov/newsroom/pressreleases/Pages/GovernorAnnouncesMa rcellusShaleRegulation.aspx> . We have posted links to a number of news stories related to the Select Committee meetings and Tomblin's announcement at www.wvsoro.org. -- Julie Archer WV Surface Owners' Rights Organization 1500 Dixie Street Charleston, WV 25311 (304) 346-5891 (304) 346-8981 FAX www.wvsoro.org _______________________________________________ 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.

1 0

Re: [EC] Delegates Schedule Public Hearings on Gas Drilling
by James Kotcon 22 Jul '11

22 Jul '11

The WV4MoM discussed this last night, and we agree that it needs to have a good turnout, preferably at all three hearings. Chuck, can you start contacting folks in the Northern Panhandle and Clarksburg areas? The Upshur County group should also get out, as Clarksburg is pretty close. I have a call in to get more details as to the format, but this is a great opportunity, and we need to start preparing ASAP. I suspect that there will be an opportunity for a few invited speakers, but whether this will be an open opportunity for everyone to speak is not clear. Two key themes will be: 1) Follow the Money. If industry says they support "Responsible Regulation" does that mean they will withhold campaign contributions from legislators that block "Responsible Regulation"? I suspect that the Doug Facemire's of the Committee will change their tune pretty quickly if industry says they will, but I also suspect that "Responsible Regulation" will turn out to be code words for "Do Nothing". If we can demonstrate to the Legislature that the industry propaganda actually means "Continue poisoning the water", we may sway a few votes, in spite of the industry campaign contributions. And when the industry says they want decisions based on facts and not "emotionalism", we need to point out that it is the industry "experts" that have let their pursuit of profits blind them to real science, and their greed that creates the emotional disconnect with reality. 2) Discredit the claims that fracking is safe and has never contaminated ground water. I am putting together news accounts of well contamination, spills, and violations to demonstrate that the industry claims that they are clean do not match reality. For example, PA-DEP identified seven cases of gas migrating into ground water for every 1000 wells in 2010. They issued over 1000 citations for violations of environmental protection rules between 2008 and August 2010. But WV-DEP has only 15 inspectors for 59,000 wells, so drillers here know they are unlikely to ever get an inspection. It is certainly true that some wells can be drilled without problems, and that some companies are doing a better job than others. That is why we need real regulations, to rein in the rogue operators and put everyone on a level playing field. If we can couple this demonstration that real problems exist, that industry experts are distorting the facts, and that the industry is in denial, with an assertion that strong regulations mean we can have both gas drilling and clean water, we will win. JBK >>> "Chuck Wyrostok" <wyro(a)appalight.com> 7/16/2011 9:57 AM >>> FYI, folks.c Chuck Wyrostok Sierra Club Outreach Organizer Toll free 877 252 0257 E: outreach(a)marcellus-wv.com www.marcellus-wv.com _____ From: Julie Archer [mailto:julie@wvsoro.org] Sent: Saturday, July 16, 2011 9:31 AM To: undisclosed-recipients: Subject: WV-SORO Update: Delegates Schedule Public Hearings on Gas Drilling Delegates Schedule Public Hearings on Marcellus Drilling The House members of the legislature's Select <http://www.legis.state.wv.us/committees/interims/committee.cfm?abb=marcellu s> Committee on Marcellus Shale have announced they will hold three public hearings on drilling issues to get input on how problems and concerns related to natural gas drilling should be addressed. In media reports, Delegate Tim Manchin, House chairman of the committee said, "The committee members have heard much about both the potential benefits and problems associated with the Marcellus Shale development - what we are now looking for are suggestions on measures that should be included in a new state law that encourages efficient development of the resource while addresses local and environmental concerns." The hearings are set for Wheeling on July 21, Morgantown on July 25, and Clarksburg on July 27. The times and locations will be announced early next week. We'll send out more details once they become available. They will also be posted on the Legislature's website, www.legis.state.wv.us. The entire Select Committee met earlier this week, and heard presentations from a variety of experts and interest groups including WV-SORO. The full committee plans to reconvene and hold three working meetings during the August interim meetings of the legislature (August 1-3). Also this week, Senator President Earl Ray Tomblin, acting as Governor, signed an executive <http://www.governor.wv.gov/Documents/20110713150559476.pdf> order directing the Department of Environmental Protection to develop rules to regulate Marcellus Shale gas drilling. The plan is a positive first step, but is no substitute for legislative action which is needed to address the problems surface face in their dealings with the drillers. You can read Tomblin's press release and the executive order here <http://www.governor.wv.gov/newsroom/pressreleases/Pages/GovernorAnnouncesMa rcellusShaleRegulation.aspx> . We have posted links to a number of news stories related to the Select Committee meetings and Tomblin's announcement at www.wvsoro.org. -- Julie Archer WV Surface Owners' Rights Organization 1500 Dixie Street Charleston, WV 25311 (304) 346-5891 (304) 346-8981 FAX www.wvsoro.org

4 3

Report from Wheeling Marcellus hearing
by James Kotcon 22 Jul '11

22 Jul '11

The Select Committee on Marcellus held their first public hearing in Wheeling last night. About 150-200 attended, and 34 people spoke. Attending were at least four House members of the Committee, as well as one State Senator. Also attending were about 4-5 other legislators from the northern panhandle region. Industry reps got there early and were 9 of the first 12 speakers. Almost all spoke mostly about jobs and economic development, very few raised specific suggestions for legislation, or even stated they opposed regulation. ALL of the last 20 speakers supported stronger regulations, and had numerous suggestions for specific issues that need to be addressed. I mention this because the tv cameras left after the first half and probably did not convey that calls for regulations outnumbered industry people by over 2-to-1. Two people (of the 34 who spoke) gave statements so convoluted and confusing that I could not figure out what side they were on, or what they wanted. So my count is 10 pro-industry, 22 pro-regulation, and two unclear. The only substantive comment from industry was when Mike McCowan of IOGA said they "would SUPPORT reasonable INCREASES in fees". (Perhaps the key word there is "reasonable"). Lots of concerns were expressed about water and air pollution, several people objected to forced pooling, a couple raised safety issues, explosions, property rights issues, or concerns about foreign exports of gas. Recommendations for future hearings next week. 1) Keep your points focused. The chair allowed only 2 minute per person, and everyone almost always ran out of time to say very much. I recommend writing out some key points and do a practice with a stop watch to make sure you get in the key statements. ( I hate it when I have a really powerful finish planned and never get to use it because I run out of time, it just leaves the whole presentation with a weak, dangling end.) If the Morgantown crowd is even bigger, the time allowed will likely be cut proportionately. 2) Show up early. I recommend at least one hour before the start if you want to speak early. We were there 40 minutes early, and there were already 18 speakers signed up ahead of me. 3) Coordinate who says what. With only 120 seconds to speak, it is important to avoid wasting valuable seconds repeating a point that has already been made a dozen times. Practice your statement with a stop watch. 4) Write out specific suggestions for rules, as this is more likely to get included into a bill than vague statements of support or opposition to drilling generally. Even if you don't have time to say everything, written comments are more easily incorporated into a bill by Committee staff. 5) Practice your statement with a stop watch. Jim Kotcon

1 0

Bloomberg gives $50 M to SC
by Jim Sconyers 21 Jul '11

21 Jul '11

Awesome! ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Michael Brune and Robin Mann, Sierra Club < membership.services(a)sierraclub.org> Date: Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 10:53 AM Subject: Congratulations! You're Making History! To: jimscon(a)gmail.com View a web version of this email.<http://action.sierraclub.org/site/R?i=Rnl09JkC9Y-xR7WfqVVU5A..> [image: The Sierra Club] Dear Jim, As the Sierra Club's Executive Director and President, we've had many opportunities to communicate with you about the work we all do together as America's largest grassroots environmental organization. Today we're thrilled to announce that New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg's Bloomberg Philanthropies, in recognition of our efforts nationwide, has provided a donation of $50 million to accelerate the Sierra Club's history-making fight against coal and to support America's clean energy future<http://action.sierraclub.org/site/R?i=Nqxj0K6CPkVvjWlYceoRag..>. We can all celebrate this as a game-changing new start for the most important environmental campaign of the 21st century and a watershed moment for our Sierra Club. Every one of you -- from those working with the Angeles Chapter on cleaning up ports to those protecting Vermont's beautiful rivers and streams -- can take pride in, and will benefit greatly from, this contribution Bloomberg Philanthropies is giving this major donation to our Beyond Coal campaign because of the Club's remarkable success in working with allies and local communities to stop more than 150 new coal plants. Mayor Bloomberg believes that people coming together in communities across the country to end America's use of this dirty, 19th-century fuel is the single biggest step we can take to improve public health, combat the pollution of our water and air, and address climate disruption. Those of you who have worked tirelessly for years to confront the fossil fuel industry can rest assured that this investment will lead to important new victories. We will quickly build our grassroots activism across the country to retire existing coal plants and confront coal's corrupting influence on American politics. We will rapidly increase our support of the innovative energy technologies that are already generating new jobs and building the foundation for future prosperity. We're confident, too, that this ringing endorsement of our organization will attract new members and supporters and encourage new donations to increase the success of all the critically important work we do in every one of our chapters from Alaska to Florida, and in all of our conservation campaigns, from protecting Arizona's deserts to taking young people hiking on the Appalachian trail. You'll be hearing more about this exciting announcement in the media and in an upcoming call. We look forward to answering your questions and hearing your thoughts about how we can build on this moment to become bigger, stronger, and more successful in our mission to explore, enjoy, and protect the planet. Thank you again for helping to make this incredible announcement possible. Today, we encourage everyone to show your appreciation for this donation and support for our united efforts by pledging to end coal and usher in a new clean-energy future<http://action.sierraclub.org/site/R?i=zWqgLT_HFXaCEPoiMWnGvw..>. Onward! Michael Brune, Executive Director Robin Mann, President Sierra Club [image: Share this page on Facebook]<http://www.addthis.com/bookmark.php?pub=johnmuir&s=facebook&url=http%3A//ac…>[image: Share this page on Twitter]<http://www.addthis.com/bookmark.php?pub=johnmuir&s=twitter&url=http%3A//act…>[image: Share this page with other services]<http://www.addthis.com/bookmark.php?pub=johnmuir&url=http%3A//action.sierra…> Update My Profile<http://action.sierraclub.org/site/R?i=hRGunUFTpIIh0d4cbP3QWA..>| Manage My Email Preferences<http://action.sierraclub.org/site/CO?i=AlIAYYLrdMwE-phzBDbwhUMBlZmbGgHO&cid…> | Update My Interests<http://action.sierraclub.org/site/R?i=1xwZBJ4cPF73u6uCfDtkyg..> | Unsubscribe <http://action.sierraclub.org/site/R?i=rxjAtq6MqNy0P5uNM1-HRQ..> Sierra Club 85 Second St. San Francisco, CA 94105 -- Jim Sconyers jimscon(a)gmail.com 304.698.9628 Remember, Mother Nature bats last.

1 0

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

Jump to page:

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

EC