EC

ec@lists.wvsierraclub.org

2254 discussions

Fwd: WVNS story: Veterans Salute the Wind Energy Tax Credit
by Paul Wilson 28 Nov '12

28 Nov '12

fyi, paul ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Public News Service <wvns(a)newsservice.org> Date: Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 3:48 AM Subject: WVNS story: Veterans Salute the Wind Energy Tax Credit To: PaulWilson <pjgrunt(a)gmail.com> Veterans Salute the Wind Energy Tax Credit Dan Heyman, Public News Service-WV http://www.publicnewsservice.org/index.php?/content/article/29489-1 Join the discussion: facebook.com/PublicNewsService<http://www.facebook.com/PublicNewsService> Twitter: @pns_news <http://twitter.com/#!/pns_news> @pns_WV<http://twitter.com/#!/pns_WV> Google+: plus.to/publicnewsservice <http://plus.google.com/106260479325451709866> (11/28/12) CHARLESTON, W.Va. - One segment of the American workforce is speaking out on behalf of wind-energy development, even in the coal states. Military veterans say their experiences in the oil-rich Middle East have convinced them that the U.S. should be doing more to encourage domestic alternative-energy sources. Some have chosen new careers in the field, including Duane Enger, who works for Gamesa in Pennsylvania. He's an Iraq War veteran who develops wind projects, and he's not shy about his interest in the Production Tax Credit (PTC), which is waiting on congressional action for renewal. "There's 37-thousand-some-odd jobs that are on the line and, to be honest, mine's one of them. And so I'm concerned and I'm interested in seeing the Production Tax Credit be extended." The Production Tax Credit gives a little more than two cents back to wind-power producers for every kilowatt-hour of power they generate. Enger says the uncertainty about its renewal has already prompted companies to slow or cancel wind-energy projects and lay off workers, including at his company. Critics of the tax credit say it gives wind power an unfair and unsustainable advantage. Supporters argue that other energy industries, including coal, get much larger subsidies and have for years. Veterans' interest in wind technology doesn't surprise Michael Breen, a former Army officer who now heads the Truman National Security Project. Breen says many of the skills learned in the military translate well to clean-energy industries, including the willingness to take on a new challenge. "And the clean-energy sector is like that. It's a dynamic, emerging place: new solutions are being put forward that are going to make all of our lives better and make us stronger as a country. Veterans are naturally attracted to that sort of thing." The Senate Finance Committee has approved an extension of the expiring tax credit, but the real question is whether Congress will take it up before the lame-duck session ends. Click here to view this story on the Public News Service RSS site and access an audio version of this and other stories: http://www.publicnewsservice.org/index.php?/content/article/29489-1<http://www.publicnewsservice.org/index.php?/content/article/29489-1> --- To be removed from this list please send an e-mail to remove(a)publicnewsservice.org <remove(a)publicnewsservice.org?subject=remove>and put the word "remove" in the subject line. -- 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

from ScienceDaily n-newsletter: Installed price of solar photovoltaic systems in US continues to decline at rapid pace
by Paul Wilson 28 Nov '12

28 Nov '12

Most of you probably know this, but... Installed price of solar photovoltaic systems in US continues to decline at rapid pace<http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/sciencedaily/top_news/top_environment/~3/AbB…> Posted: 27 Nov 2012 10:02 AM PST The installed price of solar photovoltaic power systems in the United States fell substantially in 2011 and through the first half of 2012, according to new research. -- 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

EEWV on the Harrison power plant sale to Mon Power
by James Kotcon 27 Nov '12

27 Nov '12

Let's see, Mon Power could lower my electric rates by 5 5, or raise them by 2 %. Which one do I want? JBK http://www.register-herald.com/local/x983010197/Coalition-opposes-companies… Coalition opposes companies' proposal to buy coal plants By Wendy Holdren, The Register-Herald, Beckley, W.Va. Nov. 27-- Energy Efficient West Virginia (EEWV) is opposing Mon Power and Potomac Edison’s recent proposal to the West Virginia Public Service Commission (PSC) to purchase coal plants from another subsidiary of their parent company, FirstEnergy. EEWV argues that the utility's plan is unnecessary and will expose ratepayers to additional risk. The utility has proposed to purchase 80 percent of the Harrison Power Plant, an additional 1477 MW of coal-fired capacity, and Mon Power already owns 20 percent of the plant, according to a release from EEWV. Harrison was constructed in the early 1970s and the 80 percent interest in the plant to be transferred is currently owned by Allegheny Energy Supply Co., which is also owned by FirstEnergy. The FirstEnergy companies' plan would raise residential rates by about 2 percent, in addition to eliminating what would otherwise have been a nearly 5 percent residential rate decrease for 2013, according to EEWV. The company is requesting fast-tracked regulatory approval by mid-April, but the West Virginia Citizen Action Group (WVCAG), a member of the EEWV coalition, will urge the PSC to oppose the proposal. "FirstEnergy has requested a ridiculously short timeline for the PSC to scrutinize this proposal," executive director of WVCAG Gary Zuckett said. "FirstEnergy is proposing a long-term deal that will lock its West Virginia customers into owning and operating this coal plant for at least another decade." He said according to its own filings at the PSC, there are no cost savings for state customers. "The plant is actually a long-term liability that they want to unload onto West Virginia where it will be guaranteed to recover its cost regardless of whether or not it's competitive." The proposal would reduce financial risk for FirstEnergy because it will allow the plant to recover its operating costs plus profit in the state's regulated electricity market, according to EEWV, and if the proposal is not approved, the plant will continue to sell into a deregulated electricity market where it has to compete with other generators. Due to low natural gas prices, coal-fired electricity production is currently more expensive and coal generation has been driven to record lows. EEWV says on the regional electricity grid, PJM, coal generation in the first half of 2012 was 10 percent lower than the same period last year; FirstEnergy's profits fell 20 percent in the third quarter in 2012, in part due to the reduced profits in the competitive electricity market. Both Mon Power and Potomac Edison were required to file a long-term "Resource Plan" with the PSC earlier this year. According to the company's estimates, the cost of purchasing the Harrison plant offers no long-term financial advantage to customers compared with continuing to purchase power from the regional electricity market. West Virginia's other major electric utility, Appalachian Power, is similarly planning to purchase 1647 MW of existing coal plants from a deregulated subsidiary of its parent company, American Electric Power. Their proposal is expected to be filed with the PSC next month. FirstEnergy's Resource Plan failed to evaluate an expansion of the company's energy efficiency programs to help meet future energy needs, even though reducing demand through energy efficiency is a low-cost and low-risk option for meeting electricity needs, according to EEWV. Mon Power and Potomac Edison currently have one of the least ambitious energy efficiency programs in the country. FirstEnergy's proposal highlights the need for a robust integrated resource planning process, according to EEWV. With an integrated resource planning process, utilities would be required to regularly file with the PSC long-term plans analyzing a range of scenarios to show how they can meet future electricity demand at the lowest cost, considering both energy efficiency and traditional power plants. In states with strong IRP requirements, this creates a more proactive process for the PSC and other stakeholders to scrutinize all options available to the company to make sure that the company's long-term investment decisions are in the best interest of electricity customers. EEWV will be urging the PSC to reject FirstEnergy's proposal. For more information, visit www.eewv.org. -- E-mail: wholdren(a)register-herald.com ___ (c)2012 The Register-Herald (Beckley, W.Va.)

1 0

Shale Gas Litigation strategies
by James Kotcon 23 Nov '12

23 Nov '12

Informative article by an industry lawyer on new litigation strategies. Author is Margaret Anne Hill, Partner, Blank Rome LLP. Full bio at: http://www.blankrome.com/index.cfm?contentID=10&bioID=2141 Full story is at: http://www.blankrome.com/index.cfm?contentID=37&itemID=2943 The Emerging Litigation Strategy of Environmental Organizations Seeking to Curtail Shale Oil and Gas Development November 2012 (No. 5) Shale Oil & Gas Development Opponents of hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling activities initially pursued litigation as one might have anticipated. The suits filed first involved allegations of groundwater contamination and toxic tort injury. Typically, common law claims, such as those for nuisance, trespass, negligence, and strict liability, were asserted in those early suits. Occasionally, environmental statutory claims, such as under the federal Air Pollution Prevention and Control Act (the “Clean Air Act”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 7401 to 7671q, surfaced as well. See, e.g., Citizens for Pennsylvania’s Future v. Ultra Resources, Inc., No. 11-cv-1360, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 136494 (M.D. Pa. Sept. 24, 2012). Some of these cases were resolved through private party settlements, see, e.g., Mitchell v. Encana Oil & Gas (USA), Inc., et al., No. 10-cv-02555 (N.D. Tex. Dec. 15, 2010); others were dismissed (with and without prejudice) because of plaintiffs’ failure to demonstrate a causal link between the alleged injuries on the one hand and hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling activities on the other, see, e.g., Strudley v. Antero Resources Corp., et al., No. 11-cv-2218 (Dist. Ct., Denver, CO, May 9, 2012). In short, by pursuing this strategy, those opposed to shale oil and gas development were finding success in their litigation objectives elusive, as they were gaining almost none of the traction for which they had hoped. As a result, environmental organizations, opting not to limit their attack strictly to suits of the type noted above, have adopted a more expansive litigation strategy. A parallel track is emerging, and by embarking on this additional path, these activist groups hope to pose a significant threat to continued development and production of unconventional oil and gas reserves in the United States. For opponents of hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling activities, the second prong of attack involves the assertion of claims against federal or state agencies under Acts such as the following: the National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”), 42 U.S.C. § 4321, et seq.; the Endangered Species Act (“ESA”), 16 U.S.C. § 1531, et seq.; and California’s Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 21000, et seq. This strategy also extends to the filing of administrative petitions with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”). Industry opponents are fashioning petitions designed to require industry to provide more detailed data with respect to operations, no doubt hoping that if their petitions are successful, the compelled disclosures will facilitate additional litigation. In California, there has been a fair amount of activity evidencing this new line of attack. The Center for Biological Diversity (the “Center”) recently launched an ESA challenge against the federal agency responsible for managing federal lands and subsurface mineral estates underlying federal, state, and private lands, the U.S. Department of Interior’s (“DOI”) Bureau of Land Management (“BLM”). In pertinent part, ESA requires each federal agency to consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (“FWS”) or the National Marine Fisheries Service (“NMFS”) to “insure that any action authorized, funded, or carried out by such agency...is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered species or threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of [critical] habitat of such species.” 16 U.S.C. § 1536(a)(2). In its August 29, 2012, letter advising of its intent to commence a citizen suit under ESA at the expiration of sixty days (“Notice”), the Center noted that the California’s Monterey Shale formation is estimated to contain 40 percent of the nation’s total shale oil reserves, or over 13 billion barrels of shale oil. Techniques utilized there now include a “new combination of multi-stage slickwater hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling (hereinafter ‘fracking’),” and use of this extraction method is expected to increase significantly, the Center further advised in its Notice. Although acknowledging that the BLM has issued oil and gas leases and drilling permits in the public lands that overlie the Monterey Shale formation “for decades,” the Center nonetheless now contends ESA has been violated. With the advent of new drilling techniques and of increased drilling activity on public land in California, BLM failed to conduct proper evaluation of the threat to ESA-listed species, and instead relied on “outdated biological opinions,” the Center argues. In its Notice, the Center demands BLM reinitiate endangered species act consultation regarding oil and gas leasing and drilling activities in California, and that all such activities cease. Additionally, the Center and the Sierra Club have an existing suit pending against the BLM and the Secretary of the DOI in the Northern District of California. Center for Biological Diversity, et al. v. Bureau of Land Management, et al., No. 11-06174 (N.D. Cal. filed Dec. 8, 2011). At issue in this particular federal litigation is an alleged September 2011 oil and gas lease sale of approximately 2,700 acres located in Monterey and Fresno counties, California. Plaintiffs contend that designated watershed areas and habitat for threatened and endangered species are at issue. Further, they argue that BLM’s decision to lease allegedly sensitive lands for oil and gas development must be overturned because it allegedly occurred without a full, thorough and sufficient examination of the effects drilling there would have on California’s landscapes, wildlife, watersheds and air quality. In this action, the plaintiffs claim the defendants violated NEPA and other Acts. NEPA is a procedural statute that, in pertinent part, requires a federal agency to prepare an environmental impact statement (“EIS”) as part of any “major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment.” 42 U.S.C. § 4332(2)(C). An agency must prepare an EIS for any action that has “individually insignificant but cumulatively significant impacts.” 40 C.F.R. § 1508.27(b)(7). In January 2013, the court is scheduled to hear the parties’ pending summary judgment motions. Recently, the Center, and others, obtained success in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in challenges to various determinations of the BLM, the FWS and the Army Corps of Engineers concerning the Ruby Pipeline Project. On October 22, 2012, that federal appellate court issued its decisions in the petitioners’ favor. See Center for Biological Diversity v. U.S. Bureau of Land Mgmt., 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 22016 & 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 22088 (9th Cir. Oct. 22, 2012). The Ruby Pipeline Project concerned a natural gas pipeline traversing more than 678 miles, extending from Wyoming to Oregon. The right-of-way for the pipeline encompassed approximately 2,291 acres of federal lands and crossed numerous rivers and streams supporting threatened and endangered species. In the FWS’s biological opinion, that federal agency advised that the project “would adversely affect” nine of those species and five designated critical habitats. FWS nonetheless determined that the project “would not jeopardize these species or adversely modify their critical habitat.” The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals concluded that, under ESA, the FWS’s biological opinion had to be set aside as arbitrary and capricious for two reasons: first, its “no jeopardy” and “no adverse modification” determinations relied on protective measures set forth in a conservation plan unenforceable under the ESA; and second, it did not take into account the potential impacts of withdrawing approximately 338 million gallons of groundwater from numerous wells along the pipeline. Because the BLM had relied on the FWS’s biological opinion in its Record of Decision (“ROD”), the court set aside the BLM’s ROD as well. Another of the petitioners’ challenges succeeded, too. By the time of the circuit court’s review, the pipeline was completed. The federal appellate court nonetheless determined a violation of NEPA had occurred and that “[a]n appropriate FEIS [Final Environmental Impact Statement] could still yield effective postconstruction relief in the form of mitigation.” With regard to the cumulative impact analysis that must comport with NEPA, the court found that little quantitative, specific information was provided in the FEIS, other than that the project was projected to destroy more than 9000 acres of sagebrush steppe vegetation and habitat. Because “the FEIS does not provide sufficient ‘quantified or detailed data,’...about the cumulative loss of sagebrush steppe vegetation and habitat,” the court remanded the matter to the BLM to undertake a revised cumulative effects analysis. On October 16, 2012, Earthjustice, on behalf of the Center, the Sierra Club, and two other environmental advocacy groups, initiated state court litigation against the California Department of Conservation, Division of Oil, Gas and Geothermal Resources (“DOGGR”), the state agency regulating oil and gas activities in California. Center for Biological Diversity, et al., v. California Dep’t of Conservation, Case No. RG12652054 (Cal. Super. Ct., Alameda Co, filed Oct.16, 2012). Although admitting in their complaint that “[h]ydraulic fracturing (or ‘fracking’) was first developed in the early 20th century and has been used in California as far back as the 1950s,” the plaintiffs contend that DOGGR never formally evaluated the practice and has been derelict with respect to its various statutory responsibilities under CEQA, California’s state analog to NEPA. Their lawsuit seeks, among other things, a declaration from the court that DOGGR is in violation of CEQA for failing to consider, evaluate, and mitigate the environmental and public health impacts of fracking when approving oil and gas well permits. The other aspect of industry opponents’ emerging strategy is the filing of petitions in order to prompt greater regulation, to delay or curtail oil and gas development, and/or to facilitate additional litigation. For example, on August 4, 2011, Earthjustice and other advocates filed a citizens’ petition with the EPA under the Toxic Substances Control Act (“TSCA”), 15 U.S.C. § 2601, et seq. Agreeing that “there is value in initiating a proposed rulemaking process using TSCA authorities to obtain data on chemical substances and mixtures used in hydraulic fracturing,” the EPA partially granted the petition on November 23, 2011. Having invoked TSCA authorities, EPA will draft regulations requiring industry to disclose details about the chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing and to submit existing health and safety studies related to those chemicals. These disclosure regulations, if enacted, will be burdensome; but it is the use of the information disclosed to the EPA in conformity with any such regulations that is potentially more problematic. Industry members’ compelled disclosures will be used by environmental organizations, citizens groups and activists to advance litigation objectives. Additionally, the Sierra Club and more than a dozen other advocacy groups joined the Environmental Integrity Project in the filing of a petition with the EPA on October 24, 2012. Certain industrial sectors are required to report, on an annual basis, their releases of toxic chemicals to the Toxics Release Inventory (“TRI”) of the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (“EPCRA”), 42 U.S.C. § 11001, et seq. The petitioners seek to compel the addition of the “oil and gas extraction industry” to the list of facilities required to report to the TRI. The petitioners acknowledge that fifteen years ago, the EPA elected not to do so. Notwithstanding the EPA’s prior determination not to subject this industry to EPCRA’s reporting requirement, the petitioners demand the imposition of this obligation on those businesses involved in “exploration and well development, production and processing, and site abandonment.” Again, any such obligation is more than merely burdensome; it presents a threat to industry. Because the information reported to the TRI is publicly accessible, those disclosures will fuel additional litigation - by environmental activists and others - against industry participants. As concerns hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling activities, the environmental activists are casting a wider net. To delay and impede further development of unconventional oil and gas reserves, these advocacy groups are coordinating their efforts; additionally, the attacks they are launching on the shale oil and gas industry are no longer limited to those which are customary or expected. Unconventional litigation and avenues are now pursued as well. Evidence of the emergence of this new strategy is found in environmental organizations’ recent filings in court - particularly in California - and with the EPA. Their latest efforts, in litigation and in administrative petitions, render this developing story one industry participants must follow. Notice: The purpose of this Alert is to identify select developments that may be of interest to readers. The information contained herein is abridged and summarized from various sources, the accuracy and completeness of which cannot be assured. This Alert should not be construed as legal advice or opinion, and is not a substitute for the advice of counsel.

1 0

Fwd: WVNS story: Families Want Criminal Charges for Graveyard Destruction
by Paul Wilson 21 Nov '12

21 Nov '12

I think our state legislature passed a bill to protect graveyards, but the issue is still alive and not-so-well. fyi, paul ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Public News Service <wvns(a)newsservice.org> Date: Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 4:06 AM Subject: WVNS story: Families Want Criminal Charges for Graveyard Destruction To: PaulWilson <pjgrunt(a)gmail.com> Families Want Criminal Charges for Graveyard Destruction Dan Heyman, Public News Service-WV http://www.publicnewsservice.org/index.php?/content/article/29365-1 Join the discussion: facebook.com/PublicNewsService<http://www.facebook.com/PublicNewsService> Twitter: @pns_news <http://twitter.com/#!/pns_news> @pns_WV<http://twitter.com/#!/pns_WV> Google+: plus.to/publicnewsservice <http://plus.google.com/106260479325451709866> (11/21/12) CHARLESTON, W.Va. - The people with loved ones in a desecrated Logan County cemetery are waiting to see if the gas company responsible for the damage appeals a ruling against it. In the meantime, many of them say the destruction of the graves is a crime that should be prosecuted. James Olbert of Holden, who grew up in the mostly-segregated Crystal Block coal camp, says he was heartbroken when he discovered a contractor for the gas company Equitable had bulldozed a road through the African-American graveyard there. "What was done was a felony. They give you a few dollars and think that's going to take care of everything. But I want the world to know what has happened here, instead of just pushing it under the rug." Olbert says his father's gravestone had been knocked aside, and it's now impossible to tell where the actual grave is. In fact, he says, the whole site has been completely changed. "Part of the cemetery is missing; it's been hauled away. My father's headstone was still there, but it wasn't where it was supposed to have been." The company argued in court that it was not directly responsible for what happened, and that no one knew the cemetery was there. Olbert says evidence that came out during the case says otherwise. "The bulldozer was told before he did his work there was a black cemetery there. He was told this, and he made a racial comment and just continued to do what he was doing, so it didn't make him any difference." Last month, after an eight-year legal battle, a Logan County court ruled Equitable's parent company would have to pay $900,000. The company called the destruction a "regrettable situation for everyone," but has not ended its legal challenge of the ruling. Click here to view this story on the Public News Service RSS site and access an audio version of this and other stories: http://www.publicnewsservice.org/index.php?/content/article/29365-1<http://www.publicnewsservice.org/index.php?/content/article/29365-1> --- To be removed from this list please send an e-mail to remove(a)publicnewsservice.org <remove(a)publicnewsservice.org?subject=remove>and put the word "remove" in the subject line. -- 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

KING COAL, ALIVE AND KICKING??????
by William V. DePaulo, Esq. 21 Nov '12

21 Nov '12

[image: Green - Energy, the Environment and the Bottom Line] November 21, 2012, 7:41 am1 Comment<http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/11/21/king-coal-alive-and-kicking/#post…> King Coal, Alive and Kicking By THE NEW YORK TIMES<http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/author/the-new-york-times/> [image: The lion's share of new coal plants planned worldwide would be built in China and India.] World Resources Institute The lion’s share of new coal plants planned worldwide would be built in China and India. Some 1,200 new coal-fired power plants<http://pdf.wri.org/global_coal_risk_assessment.pdf>are being planned across the globe despite concerns about greenhouse gas emissions from such generating stations, the most polluting type, the World Resources Institute estimates. Two-thirds of them would operate in China and India, it says. [World Resources Institute] The United States and Mexico will share in both surpluses and water shortages under an accord overhauling how the two countries manage water from the Colorado River<http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/21/us/us-and-mexico-sign-deal-on-managing-co…>. The river provides water to more than 33 million people in seven states and in Mexico. [The New York Times] Greenpeace looks into the use of hazardous chemicals<http://www.greenpeace.org/international/Global/international/publications/t…>in the production of global fashion brands, testing 141 items of clothing that it purchased last spring. Nonylphenol ethoxylates, or NPEs, were found in nearly two-thirds of the items, it says. [Greenpeace]. Early indications suggest that the World Trade Organization has problems with Ontario’s clean energy program<http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2012/11/19/wto-green-energy.html>, which requires that at least 50 percent of the materials in wind and solar projects initiated this year be made in the province. [CBC] -- 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

Fwd: Water is fracking issue in Utah, Wyoming, Colorado
by Paul Wilson 20 Nov '12

20 Nov '12

The attached report should be of interest. While we do not live in a desert habitat, fresh water is a finite resource and it looks like the Fracking Companies cannot turn contaminated water into wine. fyi, paul ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Tim Guilfoile <tim.guilfoile(a)sierraclub.org> Date: Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 7:48 PM Subject: Water is fracking issue in Utah, Wyoming, Colorado To: CONS-AWL-RESILIENT-HABITATS(a)lists.sierraclub.org Water is fracking issue in Utah, Wyoming, Colorado<http://www.ohio.com/blogs/drilling/ohio-utica-shale-1.291290/water-is-frack…> By BOB DOWNING Published: November 16, 2012 >From the Denver-based Sportsmen for Responsible Energy Development: Commercial oil shale development in Utah, Wyoming and Colorado would require large volumes of water, threatening Western water supplies and jeopardizing fish and wildlife, according to a report<http://www.ourpubliclands.org/sites/default/files/files/Oilshale_report.pdf>released Thursday by Sportsmen for Responsible Energy Development. According to the report, “Water Under Pressure: What Oil Shale Could Mean for Western Water, Fish and Wildlife,” a commercial oil shale industry would ultimately affect river flows and the habitat of native fish. Several important Western rivers – the Green, Colorado, White, Uintah and Duchesne – and the sportsmen who depend on them stand to see significant impacts from large-scale production. Whether it’s endangered and threatened species or the great trout fisheries beloved by anglers across the West, reduced stream flows will have negative repercussions for fish, sportsmen and the region’s outdoors-dependent economy. An economically viable technology to turn kerogen – a precursor to oil – into a usable fuel is unproven, and the scope of the potential environmental impacts is unclear. But the Government Accountability Office estimates that industrial-scale oil shale production could require as much as 123 billion gallons of water – enough water for a city of more than 750,000 homes. Roads, new power plants and transmission lines would have to be built, causing significant land disturbances and further carving up wildlife habitat already pressured by oil and gas drilling. The risk of water quality degradation from this intensive development is high and will require significant oversight, according to the report. Other potential risks include competition between current and new water users. The diversion of water from agriculture to industrial use could harm fisheries because between 10 and 40 percent of the water diverted for farms and ranches eventually flows back to the streams. The 1922 compact that allocates water from the Colorado River among seven Western states means the impacts of commercial oil shale production would be felt beyond the immediate area. “All Colorado River Basin water users together already use more water in an annual average year than the river produces. Predictions for the future show the imbalances between supplies and demands getting worse as the region’s population grows,” wrote Melinda Kassen, the report’s author and a water attorney and consultant. “For a resource that lies in the midst of the semi-arid West, with sparse precipitation and few large rivers, it is not clear where the water would come from or how it would affect fish and wildlife,” said Brad Powell, senior policy director for Trout Unlimited’s Sportsmen’s Conservation Project. “With the region’s water supply already strained and facing continued population growth, finding another increment of water for oil shale, while protecting native and sport fisheries, may be an insurmountable challenge.” Additional research will be needed to determine whether or not oil shale is economically and environmentally feasible. “Oil shale is a high-risk development on our public lands, with the greatest risk to our limited water supplies and important habitats for fish and wildlife,” said Powell. “The cautious approach outlined in the BLM’s recent decision, which focuses research and development on less sensitive lands, is prudent and helps ensure that our precious waters and habitats in the West will not be impacted until we learn more about the viability of the commercial development of oil shale.” The National Wildlife Federation, the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership and Trout Unlimited are lead partners in the SFRED coalition<http://www.sfred.org/> . -- Tim Guilfoile Sierra Club Senior Campaign Organizer (859) 426-1978 tim.guilfoile(a)sierraclub.org ><(((*>~~><(((*> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 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 Sign up to receive Sierra Club Insider, the flagship e-newsletter. Sent out twice a month, it features the Club's latest news and activities. Subscribe and view recent editions at http://www.sierraclub.org/insider/ -- 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

Greenhouse gas emissions from regulatory policies, not natural gas
by James Kotcon 19 Nov '12

19 Nov '12

The Center for Climate Strategies just published this new report which deconstructs data from US-DOE. Projected greenhouse gas emissions for 2020 are down by 23 % compared to 2007 projections. The main drivers in the decline are a range of regulatory policies, accounting for almost 3/4 of the decline in emissions. The economic slump accounted for 18 % of the drop, while shifting from coal to natural gas for electric generation accounts for just 6 % of the drop. CAFE standards, and state energy efficiency standards each account for more than twice as much in greenhouse gas reductions than the switch to gas. In fact, energy efficiency standards are projected to reduce emissions more than twice as much as renewable portfolio standards. Important lessons here for the 2013 WV legislature. See the full report at: http://www.climatestrategies.us/library/library/view/993 Jim Kotcon

1 0

Fwd: WVNS story: A New Direction For Mining
by Paul Wilson 19 Nov '12

19 Nov '12

WV chapter chair quoted on this WV Public News Service story. fyi, paul ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Public News Service <wvns(a)newsservice.org> Date: Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 4:36 AM Subject: WVNS story: A New Direction For Mining To: PaulWilson <pjgrunt(a)gmail.com> A New Direction For Mining Dan Heyman, Public News Service-WV http://www.publicnewsservice.org/index.php?/content/article/29361-1 Join the discussion: facebook.com/PublicNewsService<http://www.facebook.com/PublicNewsService> Twitter: @pns_news <http://twitter.com/#!/pns_news> @pns_WV<http://twitter.com/#!/pns_WV> Google+: plus.to/publicnewsservice <http://plus.google.com/106260479325451709866> (11/19/12) CHARLESTON, W.Va. - Patriot Coal's legal agreement to end mountaintop removal could signal a more sustainable direction for the industry and the state, according to an environmental group that is a party to the deal. Jim Sconyers, chair of the West Virginia chapter of the Sierra Club, says now Patriot is free to address its financial troubles, which should be very good news for the company's employees and retirees. "That gives them more breathing room to come out of bankruptcy, where they are now, and to figure out how to continue to fulfill the company's obligations to retired miners and their pensions." The Sierra Club was one of three environmental groups that sued Patriot over the harmful pollution from its huge surface mines. Lane Boldman, Sierra Club Cumberland Chapter Mining Committee chair in Kentucky, says the settlement underscores what environmentalists have been saying for years: It's time to move in a different direction. "It's not worth the cost of the health effects; the region needs more jobs, different kinds of jobs; and the easy coal is going away." Instead of mountaintop removal, Patriot plans to "transition" to underground and small-scale surface mining. Sconyers says as far as mining what coal there is left, that could actually increase employment. "Underground mining does employ more people. That's why the companies have gone to mountaintop removal, because they get coal with less workers and labor." Patriot Coal is among the largest mountaintop removal operators in Appalachia. When announcing the move, the company said there would be no layoffs. Click here to view this story on the Public News Service RSS site and access an audio version of this and other stories: http://www.publicnewsservice.org/index.php?/content/article/29361-1<http://www.publicnewsservice.org/index.php?/content/article/29361-1> --- To be removed from this list please send an e-mail to remove(a)publicnewsservice.org <remove(a)publicnewsservice.org?subject=remove>and put the word "remove" in the subject line. -- 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: [ACTNET-FRAC-NEWS] Who's got a great Frack photo?
by Jim Sconyers 16 Nov '12

16 Nov '12

---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: "Janice Meier" <jsmeier(a)verizon.net> Date: Nov 16, 2012 8:21 AM Subject: [ACTNET-FRAC-NEWS] Who's got a great Frack photo? To: <ACTNET-FRAC-NEWS(a)lists.sierraclub.org> Hi Folks, I'm getting ready for the UN climate change conference in Doha Qatar where the Club will have a booth themed "Beyond Fossil Fuels to Renewable Energy". Does anyone have a dirty grimy fracking photo that we could use for booth decor? Best, Janice - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 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 Sign up to receive Sierra Club Insider, the flagship e-newsletter. Sent out twice a month, it features the Club's latest news and activities. Subscribe and view recent editions at http://www.sierraclub.org/insider/

1 0

Jump to page:

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

EC